April 29, 2005

4/29: Prime-Time Live-Blogging

For weeks the Blogometer has been keeping an eye out for some debate, any debate, on Social Security. We've found some, but not much. When we launched this feature a month ago, nearly all energy had been diverted to the Terri Schiavo controversy. Thanks to that, bloggers attached newfound urgency to the Senate filibuster and jud. nominees. Soon after came the issues concerning House Maj. Leader Tom DeLay, and then U.N. Amb.-designate John Bolton (which bloggers all but ignored until Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH) delayed the cmte vote). Bloggers tend to follow the top stories as much as any other class of journalist-commentators, and this morning we see more evidence. After a month of virtually no discussion of Social Security, all Pres. Bush has to do is call a presser, and voila -- the debate is back on. Will it last?

Plus: The New York Times gets raked over the coals (as usual), Freepers tell Senate Maj. Leader Bill Frist not to bother in '08, and Elizabeth Edwards tells her fellow online Dems to be more respectful.

TRACKBACKS: Judy The Soon-To-Be Obscure

Where the blog swarm is headed, who's taking part, and what they're saying:

• In a neat and expectation-confirming development, the right-leaning blogs talking about Bush's speech pretty much all link to the WH transcript of the presser, while the left-leaning blogs pretty much all link to the NYT transcript. Whodathunk? Meanwhile, conservatives are quite unhappy with treatment of Bush's presser by the Washington Post and New York Times. Post header: "Bush Social Security Plan Would Cut Future Benefits." Times header: "Bush Cites Plan That Would Cut Social Security Benefits." Perhaps most interesting is that some liberal bloggers didn't take the presser seriously at all, as you can see below.
  Blogs referencing at least one of the above links: DailyKos; The Conspiracy to Keep You Poor and Stupid; Orrin Judd; The Corner; TalkLeft; Corrente ; The Moderate Voice; The Liquid List.

  >> Conservative PoliPundit: "I didn't hear anything tonight that made me cringe, and without reading back over the transcript, I can't recall anything that I would even count as a negative for the President." Conservative Beltway Buzz points out, as his headline states: "It Wasn't All About Social Security." Michelle Malkin headlines one post re: NCLB: "Making Fiscal Conservatives Cringe." But on SocSec, she writes: "Bush's indexing plan is moderate and reasonable. Unfortunately, the combination of Democrats' demagoguery and the MSM's relentlessly negative coverage may bring the plan down before it even gets off the ground."

  >> Josh Marshall: "The Post pretty much nails the new Bush plan on the front page of tomorrow's paper: cut pretty much everyone's benefits a lot. The sweetener? Poor people's benefits won't be cut as much!" Liberal Happy Furry Puppy Story Time reprints the transcript but rewrites Bush's answers to reflect his point of view, and puts a lot of F-words in Bush's mouth while he does it. Lefty Steve Soto fisks the presser, adding comments such as: "Lies." and: " And you've been president now for how long, and have done nothing?" and: "Ah, so it's Clinton's fault once again."

• Considering the popularity of CNN's inside-the-blogs segment on "IP" among some bloggers, it comes as no surprise that the AP's report on CNN anchor Judy Woodruff's departure from daily TV has caught some attention.

  Linking, or otherwise discussing Woodruff: Romenesko; TVNewser; Political Wire; Big Head Rob; Joe's Dartblog.

  >> National Review's K.J. Lopez: "Inside Politics might be the only CNN show I watch. This is a substance thing, not a ratings thing -- seems like a big loss for the network."

SOCIAL SECURITY: See What A Little Bully Pulpit-Wielding Can Do?

Outside the Beltway live-blogged the presser.

Right-leaning TigerHawk also live-blogged it, and comments afterward: "I think that the most interesting aspect of the President's announcements tonight was the proposal to subject Social Security to means-testing. I love that, precisely because the Democrats think that it is the absence of means-testing that gives the program its political protection. This is a huge challenge to the Democrats."

BC'00 supporter/KE'04 supporter Andrew Sullivan: "The president's press conference last night was, I think, perhaps his best ever. He was confident, in command of the facts, moderate in his views, engaging and appealing. It was much better than anything we've seen in a very long time; and it makes me wonder why his handlers keep him in such hermetically-sealed partisan settings. He's better than that; and it seems to me he keeps getting better in these contexts. ... I doubt it will shift the public mood, which is souring on the Republican hegemony. But it certainly reassured me that he is trying to tack away from the extreme right."

Lefty economist Brad DeLong on the 4 "hurdles a Bush plan must surmount before it is worth supporting": These are "primarily Republican issues, or issues that are of especial concern to those whom I once thought Republicans to be. They are supposed to worry about whether Bush's private accounts are structured to be a good deal for beneficiaries (they are not). They are supposed to be worried about raising national savings (the Bush plan doesn't, except through very indirect and improbable channels). They are supposed to be worried about competence in government. So where are the grownup Republicans on this? I don't hear a peep."

Ankle Biting Pundits writes that Bush was "fabulous" on SocSec, and comments: "As far as the substance of means testing goes I'm generally in favor of it, especially with regard to entitlements. I'm aware of valid criticisms that ask why should someone be 'punished' for being successful. But here, the system is going bankrupt and it may be the 'least worst" option that has a realistic chance to get somewhere. But the best thing is that by means testing social security you get away from a mentality of a "universal entitlement". Once you put a dent in the fact that someone is 'automatically' entitled to a certain benefit level, then you undermine support for the program."

Left-leaning Matt Yglesias, in a post titled "My Hero": "[ABC corresp.] Terry Moran. Good question about the terrorism report. Too bad he didn't ask anything about why the administration is covering it up. Delightfully off-topic response from POTUS."

A diarist at RedState argues for why personal accounts do answer the solvency question: "Integrated or 'carve out' personal accounts (meaning the accounts are funded by diverting a portion of the FICA tax and not 'added on' top of the current structure) typically include a benefit offset whereby a person's traditional benefit is reduced proportionaly according to whatever is in his or her account. This offset is qualitatively no worse than any other proposed reduction in traditional benefits to achieve solvency, be it a formula change to tie benefit increases to inflation rather than wages or a hike in the retirement age. Similarly, this offset is quantitatively no worse unless the accounts fail to achieve the same bang for the buck as the more conventional and politically painful offsets. How could that happen? In short, only if the accounts are too small to tap the power of compound interest sufficiently. ... One reason that conservatives are pushing so hard for personal accounts is because they are THE remedy to Social Security's solvency troubles, and the bigger their size the faster the solvency hawks get to nirvana."

The commenters do not all agree, but the brief debate is interesting.

"Plutonium Page" at DailyKos: So Bush's comedy act [Note: "comedy act" has a line struck through it; the Blogometer's publishing system sadly does not allow strike tags] press conference is long over, and he's gone to bed after finally finishing 'My Pet Goat' after all these years. Let's have some fun. When you aren't surfing the internets, what are you reading these days? Books? Magazines? What's your favorite genre? I'm a mystery novel junkie."

There are 341 responses.

FILIBUSTERS: Dr. Frist, Are You Keeping Tabs On Free Republic?

A poster at the conservative Free Republic writes an open letter to First under the header "Senator Frist, Even if you pull the trigger, I won't vote for you": "I just got through hearing Senator Frist on the Laura Ingram show, and Freepers, I have to say, I was disgusted by the man. He said all the right things, he talked about principle, the Constitution, the rules and all that, but what I was left with was the simple fact that Senator Frist is not a leader, he is a Politician. ... I hope that Freepers will join me in announcing that no matter what, we will not vote for Senator Frist for President, and then maybe, with that option removed from his consideration, he will then just do the right damn thing, and end this nonsense.

There is certainly plenty of agreement: a familiar sentiment in the comments: "AGREED!!! I've held the opinion for quite a few weeks now that this man is NOT presidential material, nor is he leadership material of any sort." Although some commenters are dismissive: "You have found a politician in the Senate? I am not surprised. How the heck do you think they get there?" Another writes: "As a Tennessean I agree. We voted for him because there was no other option."

Righty Ed Morrissey, on Frist's proposed compromise with Senate Dems: "The Democrats have claimed [changing the filibuster rules] as an attack on the First Amendment as well as those 'checks and balances' that they claim hinge on the use of the filibuster. However, this offer by Frist cleverly flushes out the Democrats, although the Exempt Media will certainly miss this nuance. 100 hours of debate equals at least three weeks of Senate floor time, perhaps more, during a normal work schedule. It allows for every member to spend an hour discussing a nominee's shortcomings as well as their strengths. If the Democrats have evidence of unfitness for the nominees, they will have plenty of time to present it. Why, then, don't they take the offer? Because they would have nothing specific to say, and 50 hours in which to say it."

BOLTON: Yes, Blogs Can Break News

Left-leaning Steve Clemons at The Washington Note: "TWN has just learned from a senior level source that former Assistant Secretary for Nonproliferation John Wolf has been interviewed by Republican and Democrat staff members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and validated that John Bolton demonstrated patterned and frequent vindictive behavior towards numerous subordinates at the State Department. The staff members also spoke with [ex-Amb. to South Korea] Tom Hubbard ... who was mentioned during the testimony provided by John Bolton at his first day of confirmation hearings. Transcripts of the interviews that Committee staff had with Wolf and Hubbard will most likely be made available on Monday next week."

DEMOCRATS: Lefty Blogs Spend Too Much Time Whining About The

MyDD's Chris Bowers writes in a lengthy post at DailyKos: In the blogosphere, pretty much whenever a centrist or conservative Democrat does something progressives do not like, they are called DLC." But this is "wrong. Elected DLC officials are pretty darn loyal to the Democratic Party, and I can prove it." The real "real conservative wing" of the party is the Blue Dogs. Bowers devised a "simplified scorecard ... to measure party loyalty on important votes" in the House.

Bowers breaks down which Blue Dogs defected from the party on how many votes. AL Rep. Bud Cramer voted with the GOP on all but 1 "important" vote; MN Rep. Collin Peterson voted with the GOP on all but 2. Bowers notes that in the 109th, 20 GOPers broke with their party all but 2 times.

More: ""Of the thirty members who I have come to call the 'problem children,' those Democrats who break with the party at least half of the time, only five of them are members of the DLC. This is actually a lower percentage (16.7%) than the overall DLC share of the Democratic caucus (19.2%). ... And to think that all this time bloggers, commenters, diarists and other netroots activists have been blaming the DLC for caucus disunity, when another Democratic faction entirely was to blame. It is the Blue Dogs, not the DLC, stupid!"

Mark Noonan at Blogs for Bush comments on a Mort Kondracke column on the Dems and religion: "Kondracke goes on to note how this all indicates the Democrats still haven't quite understood the religion issue and how it figured in their 2004 election loss. I take a bit of a different view of the matter: it isn't that the Democrats misunderstand, but that they actually disagree with religion but don't want anyone to know it. ... [W]hat really helps the GOP is the fact that the Democrats are being dishonest. If you approach the American people with your honest views and defend them openly, you may lose...but if you instead approach the American people by obfuscating your views and using attacks on the other side to distract from your opinions, then you will not only lose for sure, but lose very badly."

ENERGY: No Seriously -- Some Are Actually Talking About The Energy Proposal

Liberal Oliver Willis, on Bush's energy policy: "The President's proposals for energy "policy" sound so... ancient. Coal. Nuclear. Gas. C'mon. And the Democrats have really pussyfooted around this issue, and haven't attacked it at the heart. ... There is an opening for a leader, whether that's a president, senator, or otherwise - to propose a giant project, akin to going to the moon -- but much more important."

Vanity Fair's James Wolcott, on the same: "Here was an opportunity for President Bush to 'think green' for a change. Or at least think unplutocratically, just for the kicky novelty of it.... Instead, true to form, dedicated to the destruction of a livable environment for future generations, Bush is trying to boost his sagging poll numbers and beautify the landscape by jamming oil refineries and nuclear plants where the barracks and PXs used to be. He seems determined to ensure that his presidential legacy consists of little more than lies, lost opportunities, and ravagement."

BLOGGERS VS. THE MSM: Times, Times, Always About The Times

Instapundit, Mudville Gazette, The Chief Brief and INDC Journal all seize upon a New York Times editorial on Bush, and for this line in particular: "The only plausible reason for keeping American troops in Iraq is to protect the democratic transformation that President Bush seized upon as a rationale for the invasion after his claims about weapons of mass destruction turned out to be fictitious." Instapundit's Glenn Reynolds cites his own previous "link-rich refutation of this revisionist history," adding: "What's more, the Times editorial board should be very careful not to confuse "wrong" with "fictitious," given its miserable performance on the war." An Instapundit reader points out that the New York Times mentioned Bush's talk of democracy in Iraq in Feb. '03, and Reynolds writes: "Sorry, but this is just a pathetic performance by the Times, and warrants a correction. And an apology."

"Atrios," on Rush Limbaugh's legal trouble stemming from his painkiller addiction, at Eschaton: "I'm not sure which day was my favorite in recent times -- when the Limbaugh scandal broke or the O'Reilly one. But, the Limbaugh one is the one which keeps on giving. ... Like most evil liberals, I object to harsh sentencing for drug offenders and certainly think treatment is preferable to jail. But, Limbaugh has a very prominent platform which he could be using to advocate changes to the laws along these lines, which he doesn't do."

Outside the Beltway's James Joyner: "Several comments by pundits reacting to the President's press conference miss a subtle distinction between a politician consulting polls in order to figure out what stances to take on an issue vice consulting polls to figure out a strategy for selling their programs. The former is a sign of weakness. The latter is a sign of political sophistication. ... Did President Bush do tonight's press conference because the polls said he was losing? Sure. Did he adjust his message based on the internals of those polls? I hope so. Did he pick his agenda based on what polls were telling him? Decidedly not. Indeed, he surely wouldn't have tackled Social Security had he done so and been motivated mostly by the political fallout."

Instapundit: "Ann Althouse notes a slump in interest for both liberal and conservative talk radio,and puts it down to the boringness of today's debates ... How about the history of the filibuster! I think this has its parallels in the blogosphere, too. Some people wish I were blogging more about politics, but I find Social Security and filibusters boring as well. Sorry. More words of wisdom: 'If you satisfy some listeners, you lose others. You can't please everyone, and putting together an interesting mix is an art.' And the blogosphere is a place with millions of channels."

Liberal America Blog catches Microsoft founder Bill Gates in "a lie" on NPR (see 4/25 Blogometer).

BLOGGERS VS. BLOGGERS: Hypersullivating

Sullivan responds to Glenn Reynolds re: "theocracy" on the right (see yesterday's Blogometer): "Does Glenn know about this? Banning new books in public libraries that feature any gay characters or are written by gay authors? There are no theocratic tendencies among the Republicans, are there? ... Capote, Wilde, Auden, Proust and who knows who else will be barred. Government as the protector of souls. What are these 'hysterics' worrying about 'theocratic impulses' going on about?"

Liberal Marc Cooper: "Did anyone notice that George W. Bush made his big pitch on social security privatization on a day that the Dow-Jones average plummeted 128 points? After a solid month or two of similar plunges? Little wonder Dubya put the emphasis of his prime time appearance on some mumbo-jumbo about tilting a reformed system toward low-income workers. Didn't seem like the best of moments to tell his audience how exciting it would be to have a portion of its retirement future tumble before its very eyes."

Conservative Ace of Spades HQ quotes Sullivan criticizing Bush for opposing greater funding for stem cell research: Funny, before Sullivan "evolved" and felt the scales fall from his eyes regarding the perfidity of 'theoconservatism' -- coincidentally, over the same period his dream of gay 'marriage' was thwarted by a majority of the American public -- he was against stem-cell research on moral grounds ... It seems Sullivan is reversing a lot of previously-held positions lately... and all since that little decision in the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court."

CIVILITY: Notes On The Underground

Conservative Malkin notes that Elizabeth Edwards "surfaced" in a discussion thread on the Democratic Underground where posters were denouncing conservative radio talker Laura Ingraham even as she was undergoing treatment for breast cancer.

Edwards writes: "We fight for the right of voices with which we disagree to speak out, for the right of people to say things we don't believe to be true, even for the right to be malicious and mean-spirited. If we fight for the right for LI to say what she says, how in the world can we use our disagreement with those words as an excuse not to be compassionate in her fight with cancer. Being willing to have her voice muted by illness is the same thing as not wanting her voice to be heard. It is not Democratic or democratic."

Malkin, on Edwards and DU: "It was an admirable attempt by Mrs. Edwards to stop the ugliness -- though she then goes on to criticize conservatives for their lack of compassion. A few commenters applauded Mrs. Edwards. And then it was back to spewing as usual: 'She probably gave it to herself...' 'I don't pray for Nazis or other Totalitarian Scum' 'I hope she goes into remission and fucking chokes to death.' And those were the ones that didn't get deleted."

Little Green Footballs: "[Dem ex-Sen.] Zell Miller went to the hospital tonight, after apparently feeling faint during a speech in Gainesville, Florida. ... At Democratic Underground, they can barely contain their glee."

Conservative Power Line: "[CO Dem Sen. Ken] Salazar is a political novice, which may explain his ham-handed climb-down. But his explanation for his intemperate outburst [quoted in the Denver Post] does not inspire confidence: 'Salazar added that his statement came after "being relentlessly attacked" in telephone calls, e-mails, newspapers and radio stations across Colorado.' This is a very curious rationale. If you run for the Senate (or the House, or pretty much any political office) you are guaranteed to be "relentlessly attacked." Indeed, in today's world, even amateur commentators like us are relentlessly attacked. ... he kindest thing we could say is that Ken Salazar is not ready for prime time."

Liberal Amygdala, on Salazar: "I'm just sorry he feels it necessary to step back at all (I'm still fairly cranky with Senator Salazar for his embrace of now-Attorney-General/torture-apologist Gonzalez, and his Wrong Vote on cloture on the bankruptcy bill, among other elements of the mixed bag that is his as-yet-short record in the Senate)." On Salazar's latest statement: "I think he was closer the first time."

IN THE STATES: The Post's Not-So-Hard-Hitting Hit

Righty Tom Maguire: "In this era of the New Puritanism, the Washington Post seems to be straining for le mot juste" -- Headline: "Mfume Accused of Favoritism At NAACP" and subhead: "Ex-President Denies Rewarding Women." He quotes the Post on ex-NAACP chair/MD SEN candidate Kweisi Mfume (D) giving "raises and promotions to women with whom he had close personal relationships" from the lead, and writes: Readers who are sufficiently patient or intrigued to get sixth paragraph will eventually get a hint of the real charge, and no, it is not exactly 'favoritism'" The 6th paragraph mentions the phrase "claims of sexual discrimination by a female aide." Maguire: "Ahh! If the past is any guide, Mfume is being accused of sexual discrimination." He has a lot more on the Post's coverage and the MD SEN race.

MISCELLANY: Setting The Truth Free

At his MSNBC blog, The Nation's Eric Alterman lists a "top-10, a partial list of Galbraith's controversial positions that turned out to be more correct than otherwise."

CAP fellow David Sirota, at his personal blog: "Operation Truth has a stunning post noting that 39 Republican U.S. Senators last week voted against funding needed to equip Humvees in Iraq with better armor (official Senate roll call vote is here). ... The Republican Party: an organization that supports sending U.S. soldiers to die in Iraq without providing them the means to defend themselves."

Operation Truth is a liberal-leaning group blog started in 3/05 and featuring primarily veterans of Afghanistan and Iraq. Here is their bio page. Ex-MN Gov. Jesse Ventura serves on its board.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Better Keep An Eye Out For Star Trek Fans

Ernest Miller at Corante notices a Los Angeles Times story claims about the Toronto sex crimes police unit: "All but one of the offenders they have arrested in the last four years was a hard-core Trekkie." Miller: "Wow. All but one in four years. Seemed rather unlikely to me. So, I called the Child Exploitation Section of the Toronto Sex Crimes Unit and spoke to Det. Ian Lamond, who was familiar with the LA Times article. He claims they were misquoted, or if that figure was given it was done so jokingly. Of course, even if the figure was given jokingly, shouldn't the Times' reporter have clarified something that seems rather odd? Shouldn't her editors have questioned her sources? Nevertheless, Detective Lamond does claim that a majority of those arrested show "at least a passing interest in Star Trek, if not a strong interest. ... A weird factoid. Nevertheless, it is not correct that 'all but one ... in the last four years' was a hard core Star Trek fan."

LEST WE FORGET:

Lefty Jesse Taylor, at the newly-redesigned and once-more fully-operational Pandagon, writes: "Being away from the blog for a week led me to watch a lot of cable news, and I eventually came up with a schedule for CNN that I think should catapult them into the ratings lead within hours." A sample:

8:00 A.M.: American Morning with a Crotchety White Guy, an Excitable Black Guy, a Calm Multiracial Woman and a Streetwise Animal Sidekick (Sorry, Hemmer.)
10:00 A.M.: People Laugh Politely At Andy Borowitz No Matter What He Says
10:30 A.M.: The Three Things I Can Be Bothered To Take Seriously with Miles O'Brien

A few more:

4:00 P.M.: The New Capital Gang with Jonah Goldberg, Ann Coulter, Wolf Blitzer and Jack Cafferty, as moderated by Mr. Moviefone
5:00 P.M.: Lou Dobbs Reports: Outsourcing with Lou Dobbs
6:00 P.M.: Lou Dobbs Reports: Outsourcing WAR ZONE with Lou Dobbs

Posted by at 12:29 PM

April 28, 2005

4/28: So Republicans Really Are In Charge?

At a time where several major stories are getting coverage -- but no one issue dominating -- yesterday's news is, well, yesterday's news. "Justice Sunday" and talk of Pres. Bush holding hands with the Saudi Crown Prince has mostly subsided, replaced mainly by the GOP's "retreat" on House Ethics rules. That, combined with news of Bush's prime time presser tonight, is seen by some as a growing sign that perhaps the GOP is feeling more heat, even if it is waging several battles on several fronts -- UN Sec nominee John Bolton, filibusters, House Maj. Leader Tom DeLay, and SocSec. One story that has emerged, however, is that of one, if not several House GOP cmte chairs, let's say, taking some liberty with the wording of Dem legislation and amendments.

Perhaps fatigued by the multi-front battles, activity in general seems to be down on the blogs. The Air America radio gun shots are a big background story, with debate on whether the Secret Service should investigate and others seeing it as a lame publicity stunt.

And with all the focus on the GOP, could TX really elect a Dem gov?

TRACKBACKS: The Rules Are Meant To Be Broken, Then Restored?

Where the blog swarm is headed, who's taking part, and what they're saying:

• The Washington Post's story gets the most play. Linking: Political Animal; Heretical Ideas; The Moderate Voice; Best of the Blogs; View From The Radical Center.

  >> Self-styled moderate "Vyan": "Well, you can color me surprised, as the GOP has apparently decided the heat on DeLay is starting to burn and contrary to my earlier prediction, have decided to reverse recent changes to the House Ethics Committee rules which have caused Democrats to block the Committee from meeting, and kept growing ethics issues surrounding DeLay from being investigated. This is probably a good move for the GOP as it will give plenty of time to have these DeLay problems swept under the rug long before the 2006 election."

  >> Liberal Clip Monkey: "Whether giving John Bolton a beat-down, slapping around Tom DeLay, ripping the Ethics rules changes by House Republicans, or blasting Bush's Social Security plan, the minority party in Congress is showing some signs of life. And the Republicans seem to be responding on ethics and Social Security, if only a bit."

• Raw Story's piece about a supposed GOP effort to "rewrite Democratic amendments to make the Democrats amendments look preposterous" is getting a lot of buzz on the left. Linking: The Left Coaster; The Mahablog; ahistoricality; Immoral Actions.

  >> Liberal Left Coaster poster "Charles": "Talk about an ethics violation! ... There will have to be some kind of institutional penalty for this--otherwise, we have no institution called the U.S. House of Representatives any more. The institution is dissolved by the unspeakably horrible acts of its own members in subverting the very purpose it exists for -- drafting and passing legislation."

• Most blogs get news of Pres. Bush's prime time presser comes from Reuters. Linking: The Left Coaster; The Moderate Voice; Eschaton; Unqualified Offerings; Daimnation; Slideshow.

  >> The Moderate Voice's Joe Gandelman writes that the presser "comes after a tempestuous period crammed with huge controversies" over Terry Schiavo, Tom DeLay and judicial nominations. "George Bush has usually done quite well with his press conferences," and "in general he makes his case quite well." Three "key questions linger" about the presser: "Will the press ask the President tough questions? ... Will reporters INSIST on doing follow up questions? ... Will Jeff Gannon be there? Or will he be busy (or booked)?"

  >> Lefty Slideshow says the presser is "excellent news" for opponents of his SocSec plan: "He will reach even more of the public with this --- and, as we know, the more he talks about it, the more people hate it. And the lower his approval ratings go."

ETHICS: Would This Be Considered A Flip Flop?

Looking at recent GOP maneuvers on SocSec, Bolton, Judges and Ethics, moderate Joe Gandelman writes in The Moderate Voice: "The bottom line is: there seems to be a readjustment on the part of the White House and Congressional leaders to defuse some of the crises -- but not totally. Will this be enough?"

Talking Points Memo's John Marshall: "Tonight, Rep. Chris Shays [(R-CT)] may not have the whole world in his hands. But he's sure got the whole House Republican Caucus."

Liberal ArchPundit lists comments by IL Rep. (and GOV candidate) Ray LaHood (R): "To which, one must ask, who the hell didn't think this was going to happen? I mean really? You have a Majority Leader who is ethically challenged and you change the rules concerning how an investigation starts? Besides it just being a bad idea in the first place--doing it under these circumstances was just stupid."

TX-based lefty Off The Kuff's Kuffner lists TX Reps. who voted against changing the rules changes: "When someone asks 'Who's your daddy?', these guys know what the answer is ... .

Right-leaning Eric Pfeiffer of Beltway Buzz notes that much of the New York Times' story "is spent mocking House Speaker Dennis Hastert, describing the move as a 'a rare retreat,' 'a significant political embarrassment,' and when assessing the GOP leadership, declaring, 'they surrendered to the Democrats.'"

JUDGES: Gore May Be Ignored By The MSM, But Not Right-Leaning Blogs

Right-leaning Balloon Juice's John Cole, on Al Gore saying he was "genuinely dismayed and deeply concerned" by the GOP's attempt to strip the Senate "of its right to unlimited debate": "There has not been unlimited debate. If there were unlimited debate, the Democrats would lose. People would watch two weeks of debate on the nominees and finally start to say to themselves -- "Why don't they just vote on the damned guy." In a separate post: "The Senate is no longer the deliberative, dispassionate body it once used to be, and is now simply a smaller House of Representatives. ... Change the internal rules of the Senate requiring supermajorities, and let the chips fall where they may."

Lefty Talking Points Memo's John Marshall has posted about Princeton Univ. students who had been "filibustering outside the Frist Campus Center," a building his family "paid a bunch of money to have named after him." Most recently, he asks if Senate Maj. Leader Bill Frist pulled "a little nuclear option (sort of a tactical nuke, I guess)" on the students after campus police shut down a web cam that had been set up." He updated to say the cam is back online.

Colorado Pols, on Sen. Ken Salazar's (D-CO) interview on KKTV: "[S]omewhere between 'suspect theology' and 'Anti-Christ' comments, Ken has managed to completely abandon that middle ground he campaigned on."

Basie features an interview with Ex-AZ Sen. Dennis DeConcini (D). DeConcini, on the nuclear option: "It will be a big mistake. It will not bring down the Republic, but it will be a big mistake." On the would-be judges: "I think that some of these judges that the Democrats [have held] up, I have not looked at their file, but I would probably vote for some of them."

GOPERS: Revisionist History

Raw Story's piece about a supposed GOP effort to "rewrite Democratic amendments to make the Democrats amendments look preposterous" is getting a lot of buzz on the left.

CAP's ThinkFirst tracks the transformation of the "'conciliatory' Dr. Frist" to the "combustible Mr. Hyde."

BOLTON: Powell's Power Grab?

Ex-WH speechwriter David Frum questions ex-Sec/State Colin Powell's motives in a piece at ConfirmBolton.com: "If Powell prevails, the former secretary will have seized for himself a unique and arguably unprecedented role in US foreign policy. From now on, nominees to foreign-policy positions will be on notice that Powell's endorsement or veto could make or break their careers -- and they will if wise make sure to stop by Powell's office for a session of forelock-tugging before their Senate hearings. For Powell, the ego rewards from such a victory would be sweet. The material rewards would be even sweeter. It's widely expected in Washington that Powell and his old deputy and friend [ex-Dep. Sec/State] Richard Armitage will soon launch a consulting firm together on the model of Henry Kissinger's immensely lucrative Kissinger Associates. The success of the Powell/Armitage firm will greatly depend on whether Powell and Armitage are perceived to possess continuing influence. And how more splendidly to create that perception than to score a hugely publicized victory over a Republican president in a Republican Senate?" Also linking: RedState.

The Moderate Voice: "If you strip all the niceties away from a recent New York Times article, the highly controversial nomination of John Bolton as U.S. Ambassador to the UN can be boiled down to one sentence: Win this one for OUR team." More: "What will be interesting is to see whether all of this taken together confirms the school of thought that the U.S. has now shifted from an era where elections are won by whoever captures the most of the center to an era where whoever better activates their base wins."

BLOGS VS. THE MSM: Oops

Power Line's John Hinderaker posted previously that the Minneapolis Star-Tribune "was fervently anti-filibuster during the Clinton administration ... but has changed its tune" now that Dems are using it to block Pres. Bush's judicial appointments. 4/27 he wrote that said post "drew an outraged response from the Strib's Deputy Editor, Jim Boyd, who claimed that the paper had never advocated changing the filibuster rule." In a reply to Boyd, Hinderaker quoted a '94 editorial, which said: "[Reformers] should crusade for changes in Senate procedures that would prevent an obstructionist minority from delaying action indefinitely." Hinderaker received a reply from Boyd, titled "Oops," saying: "I think you actually have caught us in a contradiction. We can change our mind, as we did on light rail, but in this case, we really didn't. We simply missed the precedent and, like a court, if we make such a shift, we owe readers an explanation for why we did it." Hinderaker wonders: "[I]s the Star Tribune's editorial board actually going to try to explain why it advocated terminating the filibuster when the Republicans were in the minority, but considers it a bulwark of democracy now that the Democrats are using it?"

The Left Coaster's Steve Soto asked readers to "Be a Journalist, For a Day." He followed up 4/27: "My question was posed to make everyone live the life of a journalist for a single day to get a wee sense of the pressures you are likely to face from the Right. Every error will be magnified. Every example of 'liberal bias' will be blasted to you and your management. Never mind, a lot of it will have nothing to do with facts." More: "I'm not trying to make excuses for journalists who are bad at their jobs and publish tripe just because of pressure from the Right. Having been a rather strong media critic for nearly 3 years, I would hope readers here understand that. Rather, I'm blogging to solve problems."

BLOGGERS VS. BLOGGERS: Until Proven Innocent

Righty Instapundit's Glenn Reynolds writes: "I think that Andrew Sullivan is guilty of overreading my earlier comments on the religious right. Unlike Sullivan, I don't think we're in the grip of a theocracy -- unless 'theocracy' is defined as 'a population that doesn't support gay marriage,' in which case the point is true, but trivial. ... Andrew did a wonderful job of convincing undecideds -- and even some decided-againsts -- to think positively of gay rights and gay marriage, but lately his tone has been such that I doubt it's winning many converts. ... You go from being a minority position, to a majority position, by convincing people that you're right. It's not clear to me that playing the theocracy card will do that."

WHITE HOUSE '08: Poll Vaulting

Patrick Ruffini shares some thoughts on his poll testing ex-NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani vs. Frist, John McCain and VA Sen. George Allen and provides detailed crosstabs sorting "results by referring blog, by intensity, by top issues, and by ideology." Running against the proverbial unnamed conservative ... it would be tight and Rudy could win. ... Among self-identified conservatives, Giuliani squeaks by [Allen] 47.0% to 45.4%. With values voters, Rudy's albatross, it's Allen 58%, Giuliani 32%; Frist 52%, Giuliani 37%; and a thin majority of SoCos would go Rudy if he squared off against McCain, 51% to 32% with 17% undecided, a distinct example of party being thicker than ideology."

RedState's Erick Erickson writes about Sen. Allen's PAC: "With both his own election in 2006, and the need to build loyalty among potential future supporters, Allen will need to hoard his dollars and give strategically. It will be interesting to see how much of his money begins to flow to places like South Carolina, New Hampshire, and Iowa over the next two years." He does "have one lagging gap. Contributions to his Leadership PAC come mostly from Virginia. ... Allen needs to start expanding the reach of his PAC on the contributor side and targeting strategically on the expenditure side."

AIR AMERICA: The Shots Heard Round The Blogs

Right-leaning Balloon Juice: "I think it would be to the detriment of our nation and the reputation of the Secret Service if this is seriously investigated, and [Instapundit's] Glenn is right -- this does smell like a lame PR stunt. Besides -- I thought no one listened to Air America?"

IN THE STATES: What's Bad For DC Might Not Be For Austin

Launching 4/27: the blog Draft Lincoln Davis, which describes itself as a "grassroots effort to recruit" Rep. Lincoln Davis (D-TN) "to replace Bill Frist" in the Senate. From its manifesto of sorts, titled "We Are For Real": "We are all tired of the right wing Bible thumpers trying to tell us how we should vote. In fact not until the 1980's were the 'Christian right' even out of their basements. Tennessee needs a new kind of leader, a real southerner with real ideas. That man is Congressman Lincoln Davis."

Left-leaning Burnt Orange Report's Byron La Masters writes of the TX GOV race: It could be argued that of the past 7 elections, 5 ('78, '82, '86, '90 and '94) "were relative upsets. Does this mean that Democrats should be confident of victory in 2006? No, but it should teach us the lesson that anything can happen." Recent elections of Dems in "some of the reddest states" like WY, KS and OK, and of GOPers in blue states (MA, NY, VT, MD) "show that it is not uncommon for a state to vote against their partisan leanings in a race for governor."

MISCELLANY: It All Goes Back To Religion

Lefty Bull Moose Blog "concedes" a point to the right, that "the left is hypocritical when it asserts that religion should have no role in politics. In truth, there is a long and proud progressive faith tradition. ... Ultimately, the fundamental question is not one of faith, but the type of faith vision. Unfortunately, too many on the left are blinded by their secularism to recognize this reality. The debate should not center on the separation of church and state, but rather a justice-based faith vision versus a power-based faith vision."

Whiskey Bar's "Billmon" re-emerges after some time off with a long review/commentary on Shadia Drury's book: Leo Strauss and the American Right. "Billmon" concludes: "The risk, then, is that by unleashing the forces of religious populism to save America from the inevitable consequences of liberal nihilism, the Straussians conceivably could end up assisting the very catastrophe they claim they're trying to avoid. And wouldn't that be ironic."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Beware Of The Sponsored Link

BuzzMachine's Jarvis: "Google helped explode the internet. Without its search, no one would find our content. Without the ads, Google wouldn't make money. But then, that's Google's problem, isn't it? And a not-very-big-problem it is. ... I love Google; we all should. I don't hate Google. But I think it's time to consider fearing Google. Just to be safe."

LEST WE FORGET: Attack Of The Cheese Ninjas

A release from the NY-based prankster org. News Breakers: "A mysterious ninja crept into a live television broadcast, whizzing processed cheese toward a news team and quietly tiptoeing through their report. The stealthy invader infiltrated a WXXA-TV FOX23 broadcast undetected, as a reporter deadpanned through a live report, seemingly unaware of the cheese bombardment that ensued." True. Video is available in Windows Media or Quicktime.

Posted by at 12:30 PM

April 27, 2005

4/27: Does The Senate GOP Have A Frist Strike Policy?

Most eyes are on the announcement by Senate Maj. Leader Bill Frist and Senate GOPers that they won't accept Senate Min. Leader Harry Reid's compromise to allow some filibustered jud. nominees come to a vote. In the blogosphere, the left and right each seem to be equally convinced that Senate GOPers either do not, or do (respectively), have the votes to change the filibuster rule. Both sides also strongly think the Dems, or GOP (respectively), have the upper hand in '06.

Elsewhere, mostly liberals and centrists criticize -- and poke fun at -- Pres. Bush for his hand-holding photo-shoot with the Saudi Crown Prince. Meanwhile, conservatives are angry with Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) for giving an anti-Bush speech on the anniv. of Abu Ghraib while ignoring more positive dates related to the conflict. And campaign finance-concerned Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) rejects the invitation of DailyKos -- where Feingold himself occasionally blogs -- to sign onto a Senate bill that would keep the FEC from regulating blogs' political activities.

Plus: A one-size-fits all blog post.

TRACKBACKS: Aired Grievances

Where the blog swarm is headed, who's taking part, and what they're saying:

• The AP's early version of the no-compromise story seems to get the most attention from lefty blogs: Obsidian Wings; No More Mister Nice Blog; Joe Gandelman; The Left Coaster; Electablog; MyDD; Talking Points Memo.

  >> Liberal Jeralyn Merritt: "I don't think Frist has the votes in his own party to pass the nuclear option. I don't see him as a viable 2008 presidential candidate anyway, but if he loses this battle, he's toast in that regard. The war isn't over, we need to stay vigilant. I suspect one of the fallouts will be the passage of the Real ID Act. ... Even so, Sen. Reid has earned our praise. We're lucky to have him." Lefties Oliver Wills and DailyKos both describe it as a Frist-"blinks" situation.

  >> Blogs for Bush: "This is great news. Republicans have the votes to ban judicial filibuster, and the Democrats are losing their battle of obstruction." Conservative Captain's Quarters: "Fine and good. Now will someone tell me what their negotiations covered during the past three months? It cannot have taken 100 days of this session to reach the same positions that existed at the beginning of this session."

• A New York Times op-ed by Bob Dole -- who hopes the rule change isn't "necessary" but disagrees with the Dems' version of filibuster history -- gets a number of links from the right: QandO; The Corner; Betsy's Page; PoliPundit; Joe Gandelman. Not linking, but on topic: at RedState, Mark Kilmer and commenters argue why the '68 filibuster of SCOTUS nominee Abe Fortas should not be applied as precedent to the current filibuster debate.

  >> Outside the Beltway: "Unfortunately, the public has been ill-served by incompetent civics teachers, who misinform students about the nature of checks and balances. The nonsense about the Framers creating three "co-equal" branches and the inclusion of the filibuster as part of the checks and balances mechanism is so ingrained in most people that the actual history of the Constitution seems odd."

• Just before deadline, a post on the Drudge Report was picking up attention about Air America radio talker Randi Rhodes playing a "skit featuring an apparent gunshot warning" to Bush resulting in a Secret Service investigation. So far, only righties: The Museum of Left-Wing Lunacy; Michelle Malkin; My View of the World; The Corner; Observations; Charles Johnson.

  >> Pejman Yousefzadeh: "I sincerely doubt that Air America was trying to inspire someone to kill the President, but to say the least, the comments were in exceedingly poor taste. And if rhetoric such as the above are all they are good for, then perhaps they are not good for anything at all." Damian Penny snarks: "What is happening in America, when you can't even make a joke about killing the President on the radio without getting a visit from the Secret Service? Damn you, Ashcroft!"

BUSH: Not That There's Anything Wrong With That

Reason's Matt Welch: "If, as the saying once went, the road to Riyadh runs through Baghdad, there was no evidence on display during Crown Prince Abdullah's world-leader-leading second visit" to Crawford. "Besides making sure that all the Kingdom's 26 million oppressed subjects saw multiple images of their unelected theocrat being physically intimate with the Leader of the Free World, Bush and his pal Abdullah issued a mealy-mouthed joint statement" which made no mention of "recent Saudi floggings and imprisonment of 100 men for "dancing and 'behaving like women,'" or of the continued imprisonment of three dissidents who dared call for elections and free assembly." Welch, on part of the statement that promised to make it easier for "Saudi businessmen and students" to enter the U.S.: "Well, forgive me for being cranky about it, but I'll go ahead and place the speeding-up of visas for young Saudis pretty low on my things-I-must-do list."

Centrist BuzzMachine, on the photo op: "Bush is going to regret this photo."

Lefty Justin Logan: "I was getting more and more pissed off last night about it, but another blogger has "driven me over the edge with allegations of 'ethnocentricity' and 'vague homophobia' against those of us who were wondering what the hell is going on with that. ... A gay friend this morning asked me in so many words: 'What the hell is going on with that?'" More: "I'm not one of those 'Topple the House of Saud!' nutjobs, but for God's sake, at the very least an arm's length relationship (in both physical and figurative terms) is in order."

BLOGS VS. THE WORLD: Feingold Rejects Kos' Challenge

DailyKos diarist/Sen. Feingold responds to Markos Moulitsas' request (see 4/25 Blogometer) that he sign onto S. 678 to prevent FEC regulation of blogs, explaining it "would exempt all communications on the Internet from the definition of 'public communication' in the campaign finance laws" and writes: "Opening this loophole would undo all of the successes of BCRA that we saw in 2004, from increasing the number of small dollar donations to reenergizing the party." Moulitsas responds: "Fair enough. The Internet IS a loophole. But one that is necessary to ensure the success of that all important unfettered and free blogosphere." And there's plenty more between the 2.

Meanwhile at RedState, GOP activist Mike Krempasky explains why the FEC's proposed "'volunteer exemption' and the 'media exemption'" are insufficient to protect all bloggers.

Liberal Duncan "Atrios" Black: "It isn't about whether the internet should have some sort of exception that the rest of the media doesn't enjoy -- the rest of the media already enjoys it. The question is why the internet should be singled out for disclosure requirements that other outlets for expression aren't subject to. ... To put it another way, let's say I turn my blog over to Joe Trippi for a few weeks. Would he have to post up his full client list on the blog? Doesn't sound unreasonable, except for the fact that he never had to do so when appearing on MSNBC or any other outlet."

Later, Markos responds to those who don't believe he showed Feingold "proper deference": "I consider this place a community of equals, and Russ Feingold gets as much deference as any of you would get -- which is praise if I agree with you, and a sharp dissent if I don't. On the issue of Internet regulation, Feingold and I have a sharp disagreement, but that does nothing to lessen my admiration and respect for the man," and "despite our disagreements, I think Feingold's participation in this debate is extremely exciting."

BLOGS VS. THE MSM: Another Brick At The Wall (Street Journal)

Centrist liberal Brendan Nyhan criticizes a 4/26 WSJ editorial "on the tax code, which concludes that "[t]he U.S. tax system is already 'progressive' enough," uses a common trick: talking about the rising tax share paid by upper income Americans without once mentioning the rising pre-tax income share that they receive. ... When you receive a disproportionate increase in pre-tax income, you're going to pay more taxes -- this isn't rocket science."

Lefty Kevin Drum points up a chart the WSJ "must have inadvertantly overlooked" that shows middle-class rates rising about 1% with upper-class rates falling about 9% and says: "I see that the Wall Street Journal is busily cementing its reputation as the most dishonest editorial page in the country." Citing a New York Times story, TalkLeft asks: "Why is Laci Peterson more important than Lisa Eatmon? Both were 8 months pregnant when they were killed and dumped in the water. In both cases, their husbands were charged amid claims by authorities they were running for the border. But I bet you've never even heard of Lisa Eatmon, let alone seen her face every night on the cable news shows." Several of her commenters speculate the difference is racial; Peterson was white, Eatmon was black.

Conservative Michelle Malkin weighs in with an alternate take: "Laci went missing on Christmas Eve 2002 and the mystery lasted until the following spring ... The twists and turns in the case .. and Amber Frey, etc., etc., provided irresistible fodder for the cable news networks and crime shows. By contrast, Eatmon hadn't been reported as missing... [when] her body was found and suspected nothing before the discovery. Since the body was recovered, the New York Times has run six Metro section stories on the case ... [and] the New York tabloids and wire services have published a total of 31 stories on Lisa Eatmon's murder. Not exactly the silent treatment."

BOLTON: A Matter Of Characters

WSJ's James Taranto locates a Salon piece on U.N. Amb. nominee John Bolton from 7/16/03, which goes: "Bolton is surely 'an ideologue's ideologue,' as his frequent sparring partner Joseph Cirincione, at the mainstream Carnegie Foundation, describes him. But it's also not quite that simple. For one, unlike most ideologues, particularly hard-charging ones on the right, Bolton gains power from his pleasant demeanor, much as Jesse Helms does. During the Florida recount, Bolton was a confident and calm professional." Taranto comments: "This should make it clear, if it wasn't already, that the complaints about Bolton's demeanor and temperament are simply a smokescreen for ideological objections to his pro-American worldview."

Ed Lasky at the American Thinker concludes at the end of a lengthy critique of reputed Bolton critic/ex-Sec/State Colin Powell: "Should we be surprised that a man who betrays a mentor and plagiarizes his idea, a man who says one thing in front of a camera and the opposite behind the scenes, a man who refuses to risk his reputation by engaging in military activity, a man who counsels appeasement to dictators, who permits Shiites to be sacrificed to the genocidal Hussein, would betray an administration that bestowed upon him one of the most prestigious titles in the world? Frankly, no."

SOCIAL SECURITY: The Only Thing They Agree On -- Someone's Getting Snookered

Conservative Power Line's John Hinderaker, on the Dems' 4/26 rally against Bush's SocSec plans featuring fed'l workers: "This really is demagoguery at its worst. Federal employees already have a private contribution plan. No member of Congress relies on Social Security for his or her retirement. I doubt whether any Democratic member of Congress really believes that Social Security reform would be a bad thing. But naked politics rules, and the Democrats are once again betting that the ill-informed will be a majority on this issue. ... The Democratic Party's cynical exploitation of these people is one of the scandals of the current political era."

Liberal Talking Points Memo, on the extension of the 60-day SocSec tour: "White House exteeeeeeeends Bamboozlepalooza Tour past 60 day deadline! Because two months of humiliating failure just isn't enough ..."

Lefty economist prof Brad DeLong disagrees with Washington Post's Jon Weisman for writing that Dems see the SocSec issue "as their best chance to make political gain" and writes: "Democrats see the issue as one of stopping yet another destructive and badly-thought-out Bush proposal ... It's not just about politics. After all, if it were just about politics, would the Republicans be splintering? [IA Sen. Chuck] Grassley, [WY Sen. Craig] Thomas, and [ME Sen. Olympia] Snowe are not just playing the game of politics, they are trying to figure out what is best for the country -- as are [ND Sen. Kent] Conrad and others."

WHITE HOUSE '08: Rudy Runs 'Em Over?

24 hours later, Patrick Ruffini's ex-NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani vs. the GOP field poll has over 3250+ self-selected respondents. Whereas Rudy was handily beating Frist and John McCain yet just behind VA Sen. George Allen, he now far outdistances all comers. Allen still has a 10-point edge on the other 2. A caveat the pro-Rudy swing likely has something to do with the link from libertarian-leaning and very pro-Rudy Instapundit.

Slate's Mickey Kaus on the LAT's Ron Brownstein "party-in-a-laptop" column, mentioned in the Blogometer yesterday: "Brownstein explains the great flaw in the base-pleasing strategy of Karl Rove in 2004 and the Democratic CW now: by ignoring moderate swing voters ... the two existing parties open a royal road up the middle for a centrist third party maverick who uses the Internet to create a national organization and raise millions in a matter of days. ... Brownstein has spotted the template for 2008, I think."

IRAQ: Not-So-Happy Anniversary

Kennedy's anniversary speech draws fire from the right: Little Green Footballs: "The ever-disgraceful Ted Kennedy gave a very special speech today, using the word 'torture' 38 times ... What an absolutely reprehensible human being he has become, a glaring symbol of the irrelevance and bitterness of today's Democratic party."

Conservative Arthur Chrenkoff: "Senator Edward Kennedy didn't have anything to say on 19 March, the second anniversary of the start of the liberation of Iraq. In fact, he kept quiet until two days later, only to talk about President Bush's judicial appointments. Senator Kennedy didn't have anything to say on 9 April, the second anniversary of the liberation of Baghdad and the end of Saddam's regime. In fact, he kept quiet until the following day, when he spoke on the occasion of receiving a community award."

Ex-Army officer Phil Carter wrote last week, on the clearing of senior officials in wrongdoing at Abu Ghraib, at Intel Dump: "In the Army's leadership schools for officers and sergeants, the doctrinal manual preaches quite a different result from the outcome of this investigation. Bottom line: commanders (and NCOs) are responsible for everything their unit(s) do or fail to do, period. A commander, especially a general officer, is not just responsible for those things he/she ordered, but for those things that he/she knew about -- or should have known about."

Anti-war prof Juan Cole on a Gallup poll finding 50% of the public believes Bush actively misled them on Iraqi WMD: "I am sure that Bush & Co. exercised poor judgment, jumped to conclusions, exaggerated threats on the basis of thin evidence. All that is well documented. But it seems to me remarkable that so many in the public think they actively lied. It is easy to see why the public so concludes. ... They know that there was a pre-existening [pro-war] policy, and that the administration cut and pasted the evidence to push that policy."

BLOGGERS VS. BLOGGERS: Selective Outrage?

Liberal MaxSpeak: "Is it me, or is there much less attention from people like InstaPundit, Belmont Club, Power Line, and Roger [L.] Simon paid to anti-authoritarian uprisings in Ecuador or Mexico? Where are the extended posts, protest photographs, and denunciations of "the Left" for insufficient democratic vigor? Must we conclude that democracy is safe and secure in Latin and South America, but so imperiled in Eastern Europe and the Middle East that it requires continual surveillance?"

IN THE STATES: Tony Rap Could Still Lose?

Lefty journalist Marc Cooper: "Barely three weeks to go in the L.A. Mayoral run off between incumbent Jimmy Hahn and Antonio Villaraigosa and it is -- excuse the cliche -- a real yawner. Both guys are promising the moon when -- in fact -- thepost of Mayor of Los Angeles is a weak one. ... Tony Rap, as Villaraigosa was known in high school, appears to be coasting to an easy May 17 victory. Some polls show him 20 points or more out in front with Hahn in freefall. But only the most naive would call this bout already over." As evidence, he points to an article by blogger Kevin Roderick in the Los Angeles Magazine.

MISCELLANY: Huffington, Santorum And Gannon -- Oh My!

On 5/16 Personal Democracy Forum hosts its '05 blogging conf. Among the bloggers who will be present: Hugh Hewitt, Jeff Jarvis, Dan Gillmor, DailyKos' Moulitsas, Doc Searls, Josh Marshall. Among the non-bloggers: Craigslist's Craig Newmark, GOP consultant Tucker Eskew, New York Times' Jennifer 8. Lee, MoveOn's Zack Exley, ACT chair Gina Glantz. Among those somewhere in-between: Arianna Huffington, Ex-Dean advisers Nicco Mele and Zephyr Teachout, National Review's Rich Lowry, and RedState's Krempasky.

Recently the Blogometer noticed Sen. Rick Santorum's (R-PA) bill helping Accuweather. Right-leaning Wizbang's "Jay Tea" has more: I'll admit I find the whole idea of getting excited about weather a bit silly, but to each their own. But [a couple of bloggers following the case] noticed that their criticisms of Santorum's bill (and, by extension, Accuweather) attracted some rather heated responses. [One blogger] was a bit puzzled, but Dave was intrigued enough to look into his critics. Lo and behold, he reports they are posting from IPs owned by Accuweather. ... To me, it looks like Accuweather is dabbling in ["astroturfing"], along with more traditional forms of political influence."

JustOneMinute's Tom Maguire on Gannongate, also yesterday: "Steve Soto has fun with the questions for the conspiracy-minded, but eventually get to the one question that needs to be answered before the others are relevant: 'I wonder how many other reporters have similar anomalies with their Secret Service security records? Just asking.' Exactly. At this point, we have no idea whether [James] Guckert's sign-in behavior is unusual. ... A commenter at Steve's mentions that some days Guckert signed in that did not include a press briefing did include a photo-op. Oh, boy, unraveling already?"

Roger L. Simon posts an explanation from Andrew Breitbart about his leaving the Drudge Report and why he's signed on with the forthcoming Huffington Post, which seems likely to be to the left of him.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: How The Blogosphere Will Be Co-Opted?

Conservative John Hawkins contemplates how a "corporate takeover" of blogs might happen, using News Corp. as an example: "Here's a concept: go to 20 conservative bloggers with audiences ranging let's say from 2500 readers a day to 20,000 readers a day and offer them a two year contract for a job with 'FoxBlogs' -- 20 blogs set up off the main Fox webpage. Let's say they offer a salary between $25,000-$40,000 a year, health care, vacations, the works -- plus, no restrictions on content & on staff web designers to handle any problems. How many bloggers would take that deal? Probably a lot of us, because that's the dream a lot of us have: to live off of our writing. So let's say Fox has now committed 750K a year to get 20 bloggers who bring, let's say, 150,000 - 200,000 readers to the table initially. Then Fox really gets to work. They add links to these bloggers from their website, they cycle them into the guest lists on Fox, they get them slots on Hannity &O'Reilly 's radio show. Give it a year or so and the same 20 bloggers who were pulling in 200,000 or less readers per day could be doing 1-2 million sets of eyeballs per day. If you can have 2 million readers after 1 year, are 3-4 plausible for year two? Sure. 5-8 million year three? Sure."

More: "When all was said and done, you'd end up with a few really big independent blogs and everybody else with any kind of audience at all working for corporations. The rest of the blogosphere would be reduced to sort of a "farm team." You go out, you prove yourself by building an audience, and one of the big corporate blogs snaps you up and gives you a salary. ... The only thing stopping the corporations from taking over the blogosphere is that the corporations haven't decided to do it... yet."

LEST WE FORGET: Generic Post

Jim Treacher writes the all-purpose blog post: "Can you believe that politician? How do these guys think they can get away with this stuff? That party is always pulling crap like this. Throw the bums out! ... The thing that one blogger said was stupid and dumb. Get a clue, jerk. A member of the mainstream media made a mistake. Stop stealing your paycheck, member of the mainstream media! Tipjar on the right."

NOTES AND ERRATA

Yesterday's Blogometer made it seem as if the Denver Post's John Aloysius Farrell wrote for the Rocky Mountain News. The bad is ours. But hey, at least we got "Aloysius" right.

Posted by at 12:33 PM

April 26, 2005

4/26: I Just Called To Say ...

Yesterday Senate Min. Leader Harry Reid held a conf. call with a handful of prominent liberal bloggers, including representatives from DailyKos, TalkLeft, MyDD and The Left Coaster. Reid shared strategy with them, and they reported what they learned in posts described in detail below. Perhaps the 2 most interesting bits, if reported accurately, are 1) Reid identified nearly a dozen GOP sens. who might not go along with changing the filibuster rules, and 2) Reid said the Dems would filibuster nominee U.N. Amb. nominee John Bolton if he reaches the Senate floor.

In one way or another, plenty of coverage today has to do with filibusters or Bolton. House Maj. Leader Tom DeLay doesn't get much attention, but GOP lobbyist Jack Abramoff does. And -- in the story that will never die -- so does flaky ex-WH correspondent Jim "Jeff Gannon" Guckert.

TRACKBACKS: Inflationary Fears

Where the blog swarm is headed, who's taking part, and what they're saying:

• Moving the Bolton coverage is a New York Times story reporting that Bolton "inflated" the danger posed by Syria. Linking: Michael J. Totten; Skippy the Bush Kangaroo; War and Piece; Penndit; The Partisan Divide.

  >> Lefty Steve Clemons: "I have known a number of people who worked around John Bolton, and in mid-2003, one of these people made an off-hand comment, which perhaps should not be taken too seriously but nonetheless was chilling. He said, 'if my boss had his way, would be at war with North Korea right now.' I guess that was the moment when I realized John Bolton's potential danger in the national security establishment."

  >> National Review's Rich Lowry: "The New York Times hits Bolton on Syria today. ... Bolton is guilty of proposing going beyond the intelligence, although he ultimately didn't."

• 2 stories move some of the filibuster talk -- a Washington Post poll finding that a "strong majority of Americans oppose changing" Senate rules on filibusters, and an AP story on a possible compromise. Blogs linking to one or both: Democratic Veteran; Talking Points Memo; The Moderate Voice; Betsy Newmark; Brothers Judd

  >> National Review's Jim Geraghty, on this a.m.'s Washington Post poll: "The phrasing of the question is fascinating: "Would you support or oppose changing Senate rules to make it easier for the Republicans to confirm [Pres.] Bush's judicial nominees?" Unsurprisingly, when portrayed as a power grab, only 26 support, and 66 oppose. One wonders if the response would be different if the respondents were asked, 'Do you support a minority of Democrats preventing Bush's judicial nominees from being voted on, when a majority of senators have indicated their support for those nominees?'"

  >> Liberal Ezra Klein: "But it seems that Reid and Co. could gamble, with reasonable certainty, on killing the nuclear option. And serving Republicans with a defeat on that, right after Social Security and Schiavo, would really solidify perceptions -- and thus the media storyline -- of the right as disorganized and on a downward trajectory, while adding significantly to Democratic momentum."

• Yesterday we linked to the lefty news site Raw Story, which featured a follow-up on Gannon/Guckert. After our deadline, the liberal blogs picked up on it, big-time. Also popular is an AlterNet investigative article piecing together his move to DC. Neither story really answers what he was doing or what motivated him. Linking: The Poor Man; Eschaton; The Mahablog; FishbowlDC; Dan Gillmor; South Knox Bubba; Corrente; Suburban Guerrilla.

  >> "Digby" at Hullabaloo tries to sort out the unknowns of his move into journalism: "[H]ow, exactly, did he make a living during this period? Did someone 'meet' him and think that a man who not one person remembers ever making a political remark in this life could be a perfect blank slate? Did this man whose entire life has been spent as an office worker in dull and colorless businesses in rural Pennsylvania just suddenly have a Walter Mitty fantasy that happened to come true? Who created Jeff Gannon?"

  >> Cartoonist "Tom Tomorrow" of This Modern World: "But remember, the only thing interesting about this story is that it shows how much liberals hate gays. Or something like that."

FILIBUSTERS: Call Of The Riled

DailyKos' "Armando" reports that Reid, during the conf. call, said that "he believed that if [Senate Maj. Leader Bill] Frist had the votes in the Senate to push the "nuclear" button, he would have done so today" and that there is a "core of sane" GOP sens. "who realize the irreparable damage that would be caused by Frist's going 'nuclear.'" They "appear to be Sens. John McCain (AZ), Lincoln Chafee (RI), Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins (both ME), Chuck Hagel (NE), John Sununu (NH), Gordon Smith (OR), Lindsey Graham (SC), Dick Lugar (IN), Arlen Specter (PA), and John Warner (VA).

"Armando": As Democrats (or most of us anyway), there can be no doubt that we disagree much more than we agree with the above listed Republican Senators. But it would be wrong of us not to acknowledge and applaud the integrity, love of country and political courage these Senators are exhibiting in this situation." More: "Senator Reid also acknowledged a need to explain more comprehensively the basis for the Democratic opposition" to Bush's jud. nominees, and "assured us that the substantive case for opposing [them] will continue to be made, and in a more forceful and detailed fashion."

The Left Coaster's Steve Soto: "Senator Reid said that he has been approached by more than a few Republicans who express the hope that Reid can find a way to stop the radical power grab. .... He praised the Republicans who put their country and the constitution above their party in this situation."

MyDD's Chris Bowers writes, "the frequent reports that Reid and Democrats would 'shut the Senate down,' if Frist and the Republicans went ahead with the nuclear option are wrong. The actual plan of attack would be to 'stop giving deference'" to the GOP agenda. Bowers explains it as he understands it. On the possible compromise Biden floated this weekend, allowing most but not all judges to get a vote: "If I understood Senator Reid correctly, this is a possible compromise all Senate Democrats are looking into."

Blogs for Bush's Matt Margolis, in a post titled "Read My Lips, No Compromises": "All of these so-called compromises are bad. ... [Dems] are offering to compromise because they know they are going to lose. Bush can get all of his nominees to have their up-or-down votes without any compromise. [DE Sen. Joe] Biden and Reid have not offered any real compromises. They want the Republicans to give up on banning the judicial filibuster, in exchange for a small number of judges... Why? They want this compromise to leave them the opportunity to block any judge Bush might nominate to the Supreme Court."

BOLTON: File Under "Filibusters"?

More Soto, on the call: "One other thing that Senator Reid confirmed in this call is that if the John Bolton nomination gets to the floor, we will see Democrats filibustering his nomination."

Picking up on a report that ex-State official/Bolton colleague Frederick Vreeland submitted a letter critical of Bolton to Biden, Power Line asks who Vreeland is. They find an IHT op-ed he wrote on the '03 terrorist bombings in Morocco, and characterize it as such: "Terrorist bombings in Morocco are 'collateral damage' from America's anti-terrorist efforts. But it gets even worse: Vreeland can't talk about Morocco for four paragraphs without changing the subject to -- you guessed it -- Israel. ... Vreeland thinks that we need to listen to what Muslim extremists are "complaining about." This is precisely the tired, dead-end thinking that the Bush administration has finally put to rest."

Jonah Goldberg, at The Corner: "I really do hate tit-for-tat congressional politics. But if the Democrats really do tear down Bolton on what is, ultimately, rinky-dink nonsense then Republicans will be obliged to make the management style and office demeanor of all future Democratic nominees an issue. This will make Republicans hypocrites in the sense they think what the Democrats are doing to Bolton is wrong in the first place but will do the same thing to liberals later. But this is how Congressional politics must work. If one side establishes a new standard the other side has every right and obligation to adopt it."

ABRAMOFF: Someone Could Get Burns-ed

Lefty Swing State Project highlights the connection between Abramoff and Sen. Conrad Burns (R-MT): "What is the one thing that makes a worse scandal than an Jack Abramoff golf trip? A hunting trip." Abramoff aide Shawn Vasell "is one of the major links between" Abramoff and Burns, "having worked for Abramoff directly before and after working for Burns" as state dir.

Left in the West's Matt Singer: "Basic gist? Shawn Vasell ... was apparently in Montana last Thanksgiving and he went hunting with two brothers named Reger from Billings. One of the Reger brothers wrote up the whole account on his now-deleted website, but we got screenshots of the whole thing first." Singer writes: "This trip was illegal. If Reger reported the details accurately, multiple laws were broken. Shawn Vasell has not had a hunting permit in Montana: since '01, he "apparently shot the deer from inside a car (illegal)," and more. He writes: "This isn't just illegal. It violates many of the unwritten rules of landowner/hunter relations."

The American Prospect's Tapped finds a report by the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz from '85 that found then-College GOPers pres. Abramoff running both partisan and non-partisan outfits at the same time, and comments: "The young Howard Kurtz sounded a lot like Josh Marshall when writing about Abramoff 20 years ago; I'd be curious to hear Kurtz's reflections now, two decades later, on that new 'era of obfuscation' ushered in by Abramoff and his Reagan-era allies. Clearly, this present scandal has been a long time coming."

BLOGS VS. THE MSM: The Declining American Newspaper

Slate's Mickey Kaus, on deceptive newspaper practices: "Why don't the LAT and NYT (and Time, and Newsweek ... ) accurately disclose to their readers the date they were actually finalized (e.g. the date they were printed)? They could easily do it. The reason they don't is because readers prefer to read the latest information, and the publications want their customers to think they are getting information that's more up-to-date than it actually is. In other words, it's not just an unavoidable problem, or trivial lack of disclosure. It's conscious deception for commercial gain!"

Rocky Mountain News editor/publisher John Temple has started a blog. In one early post, Temple shares inter-office e-mails where DC bureau chief/columnist John Aloysius Farrell disagrees with columnist Dave Kopel's contention that Farrell is left-of-center. Editorial page editor Vincent Carroll also weighs in.

Ex-San Francisco Examiner reporter (before it was a free paper) Tim Porter last week wrote a post at his First Draft blog about the current state of the newsroom, "Yes, my friends in the newsroom, there's less money and there are fewer people. That's not really your fault ... But, I am sorry, my friends in the newsroom, much of the rest is your fault. ... The obdurance and avoidance endemic in newsrooms rests on a bedrock belief that the 'problems' at their newspapers are best solved with more bodies or a return to a more 'traditional'" form of journalism." He offers links to the "plenty of ideas for change out there and some very smart people pushing them."

BLOGS VS. THE MSM II: Why Aren't You Covering XYZ?

The 4/20 Blogometer noted that the WH may have been more involved in the removal of the "Denver Three" from a Bush event in CO. Late last week the liberal Carpetbagger Report updated to note that the Secret Service has begun an investigation, adding: "It's worth re-emphasizing that the thug in question dressed in a dark suit, wore an earpiece, and threatened the Denver Three with arrest if they 'did anything.' And yes, impersonating a Secret Service agent is a crime. But let's also not lose sight of the bigger picture: someone had to train and direct this guy. Just as importantly, a top Bush aide has suggested that an official working for the White House was directly responsible for the policy that led to this fiasco. Maybe now would be a good time for the national media to show some interest in this?" Colorado Luis writes, "In case you're wondering why there is so much news about the Denver Three lately, part of it has to be that they have really gotten their PR act together. I must get five e-mails a day from those guys, and they've got a website up and running" at DenverThree.org.

Right-leaning VodkaPundit's Will Collier, on the New York Sun's story about Sen. Ted Kennedy brother-in-law Raymond Reggie's informing on an ex-fundraiser to Sen. Hillary Clinton: "And what a story! It's got corruption, Kennedys, secret informants, Clintons, even weird sexual allegations. You'd think it would be the lead headline from coast to coast. But funny thing--you can't find it much of anywhere. It's nowhere to be seen at CNN.com, even on the Politics page. It's not on the front of the New York Times website, and the only mention within the site is a canned AP story. Gee, I thought the Times was supposed to be the 'newspaper of record,' with the best reporters in the world -- they couldn't even spare one of them ...? The Washington Post, allegedly the Times' biggest competitor for political news, doesn't mention the story at all. A search for 'Raymond Reggie' at WaPo gets no relevant hits. Golly, I wonder why not."

At his personal blog, The Nation's David Corn recounts getting castigated by an AIPAC lobbyist for a column Corn wrote, and notes a Washington Post report on the firing of 2 officials who may have given U.S. secrets to Israel: "That sure sounds like the scandal is reaching a combustible phase. As I noted in my first item, the AIPAC affair -- which could have serious implications for the neocons -- has been an underreported story in the Washington media. Why?"

BLOGS VS. THE MSM III: Checks And Balances

Jeff Jarvis of BuzzMachine reprints a "pretty shocking email from a journalism student at NYU": "I am writing an article on fact-checking in blogs. ... Recently, sent Gawker.com a fake tip (said I heard Moby say to a little girl, "Don't ever say that Teany [Moby's tea store] is Shitty"). They posted it in their "Reader Sitings" section. I e-mailed them and said it was fake. But they posted no correction and the fake tip is still on their site. Do you think Gawker should be held responsible for any damages against Moby? Do they have a responsibility to fact-check reader tips, do you think?"

Jarvis: "I had a very simple response to this student: 'You are responsible.' Ethically and otherwise. Gawker puts up notes from readers and clearly labels it: 'Sightings are sent in by readers.' Any reader with a two-digit IQ and any experience with this medium and the internet knows that readers can publish anything anywhere and so, caveat reader. If this would-be journalist simply asked Gawker, I'll bet they would have given an answer. Ask me about the comments here or the posts in a forum and I'll tell you quite clearly: Nothing is vetted or edited. That's obvious. But if you were a good reporter, you'd ask the question. And if you did not get an answer, you still should not resort to what you did. You lied."

Gawker Media's Lockhart Steele writes in the comments: "Gawker, to my knowledge, did not get the correction. It's our policy to correct known errors, of course, though as Jeff states, reader sightings are buyer beware. I'll add a strikethrough to the entry."

BLOGS VS. THE WORLD: Put Your Signature Where Your Rhetoric Is

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) writes in his DailyKos diary: "I read with interest Kos's recent post where he writes that I'm someone who wants to restrict blogging. That just isn't true. I respect Kos's opinion and was sorry to read that he has that impression. For my part, I intend to be a force to make sure that vigorous and free-wheeling blogging will continue without interference."

Markos himself quotes that, adding: "I'm glad to hear that's his view," but "it's irrelevant whether Feingold wants a free-wheeling blogosphere without government interference. A federal judge has already stated that the medium must be regulated. So my message to Feingold is simple -- you've stated the importance of a free blogosphere. Now put your words in action by becoming a co-sponsor" of the Reid Act, S.678. RedState's Mike Krempasky: " I promise, this won't happen often - but Markos has shown a good bit of mettle calling on Senator Feingold to back up his pro-blog rhetoric ... with some action. Well done."

Los Angeles Times' Ron Brownstein wrote: "The Internet could allow an independent candidate to more easily identify an audience and financial base, just as it has allowed blogs like the liberal Daily Kos or conservative InstaPundit to find a community of like-minded readers. More precisely, the Internet has allowed readers to find those blogs. And because the audience mostly finds the product, rather than the other way around, the cost of entering the market is radically reduced." At the Bull Moose Blog, centrist Marshall Wittman comments: "If the two parties don't get their act together, it is indeed within the realm of possibility that the Internet could fuel a most historic insurgency in American history -- a successful cyberspace third party Presidential bid." Also picking up on this is Personal Democracy Forum.

MIDDLE EAST/TERRORISM: Second Opinions

Yesterday the Blogometer noted, right-leaning websites including Little Green Footballs pointed up the latest installment of Women's Wall Street writer Annie Jacobsen's "Terror in the Skies" series. Not long after, liberal sites picked up on the same. TalkLeft quotes an old National Review Online report with details confirming the Syrians are in a band called Mehana. A booker says: "Well, Mehana comes across not as an angry jihadi, but rather more like the Syrian Wayne Newton."

Lefty blogger "Roger Ailes" at Roger Ailes: "Earlier in the article, Nutbag Annie claimed '[n]aturally, the agents 'were not at liberty' to tell me anything about the 13 Syrian men aboard flight 327.' But then she claimed that the agents told her how the men entered the country, what visas they had, when the visas expired and whether the men were interviewed at LAX. So which is it?" (Blogometer note: As if you need to be told, this is not the real Roger Ailes.)

WHITE HOUSE '08: Pod People

Ex-Sen. John Edwards' One America Committee blog directs readers to Podcast411, which has a podcast interview with Edwards: "They discuss UNC basketball, John Edwards' favorite podcast, and much more in this discussion about podcasting."

Ex-BC'04 aide Patrick Ruffini notes that despite ex-NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani's (R) high poll ratings, the C.W. "seems to be congealing in an anti-Rudy direction" on account of "whether he could survive the conservative primary electorate." Ruffini: "I'd like to run a test for the solidly conservative blog activists who will be instrumental" in '08. Ruffini pits Giuliani against Frist, McCain and Sen. George Allen (R-VA). With a little over 200 votes counted, Giuliani far outpaves Frist and McCain, but trails Allen by just under 10 points.

SOCIAL SECURITY: Reporting? In A Column??

Righty economist Don Luskin, writes, new NYT columnist John Tierney "finally engages the Social Security debate -- and it's a whopper. After an endless parade of lies from Paul Krugman about how bad reform with personal accounts has been in Chile ... Tierney actually got on a plane and checked it out himself (Krugman, of course, never leaves his office in Princeton; he gets all the facts he needs from radical leftist websites)."

IN THE STATES: One Ring To Inform Them All

Right-leaning MN First Ring Blog -- which correctly guessed that ex-Sen. Rod Grams (R) would drop his SEN bid -- asks: "Could one of the factors in" Grams' withdrawal "be because of rumors" of Rep. Jim Oberstar's (R-08) "retirement?"The post quotes the "controversial but often accurate" Minnesota Democrats Exposed blog, whose author states: "I also heard that people in DC have heard the retirement hint from Oberstar, too. Consequently, I know that Rod Grams, who works mostly in DC and is privy to the beltway gossip, is seriously interested in running for the seat."

Pro-ex-Rep. Ed Bryant (R-TN) for SEN Blogging for Bryant lists the reasons why ex-Chattanooga Mayor Bob Corker (R) is having trouble: "Corker failed to clear the field," "Corker is stalled in the polls," "Corker is known by the Republican grassroots as a tax-raising, pro-choice moderate," " Corker is spending money early." More: "The hiring of a high-priced, big-name GOP consultant shows Corker knows he needs an image make-over. His campaign advisers may be good -- but they're not magicians."

TX lefty Charles Kuffner: "HJR6, the bill that would make gay marriage Double Secret Illegal via a constitutional amendment, passed out of the House today by a 101-26 vote. As this was a vote on a proposed Constitutional amendment, the magic number was 100, as in 100 votes to pass." The bill needed 17 Dems "to take this disgusting thing one step closer to reality. Eighteen of them shamefully stepped up." Kuffner lists their names and adds more commentary.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Old-Timers Think The Kids Today Have Gone Soft

Ex-Reagan aide Lyn Nofziger, at his semi-blog: "The Democrats may well be the minority party in Congress and in the country but regardless, just about everywhere one looks they have Republicans on the run." Citing the trouble with DeLay, Bolton and Bush's Social Security plans, he writes: "Too many Republicans in the House and Senate are afflicted with one or both of two problems. Either they don't believe in much of anything or they are afraid to fight for what they do believe in. Makes one wonder sometimes why one should bother being a Republican, doesn't it?"

LEST WE FORGET: Young Einsteins

Fark holds a Photoshop contest asking readers to manipulate the famous statue of Albert Einstein from the National Mall. Like usual, all entries are not all tasteful or executed with equal skill. That said, you can find them all at the previous link. Bush is best lampooned in this picture; Einstein is put into unlikely situations; and he is even inserted into scenes from Ghost and Planet of the Apes.

Posted by at 12:34 PM

April 25, 2005

4/25: Going Nucl... Er, Constitutional

A few of the stories making waves today: Senate Maj. Leader Bill Frist's telecast, Senate Maj. Whip Mitch McConnell's (R-KY) announcement that the GOP has the votes to break the filibuster, and Sen. Joe Biden's (D-DE) proposed compromise; Microsoft's decision to withdraw support from a WA gay rights bill, and a new GA law that requires picture ID to vote. Completely absent, this a.m.: House Maj. Leader Tom DeLay.

TRACKBACKS: Mitchy Mitchy Mitchy ...

Where the blog swarm is headed, who's taking part, and what they're saying:

• Getting a lot of play is this Reuters report on McConnell's "Face the Nation" comments re: breaking the filibuster: "There's no doubt in my mind, and I'm a pretty good counter of votes ... that we have the votes we need." The Washington Post's David Broder's latest also attracts some attention, as is a Los Angeles Times piece on Frist's weekend telecast for Christian conservatives. Linking to one or more: Corrente; The Moderate Voice; Brothers Judd; ConfirmThem; PoliPundit; The 13th Floor; Slightly Left of Center; GOP Bloggers; Blogenlust.

  >> Righty Ed Morrissey: "Isn't it amazing what a backbone can accomplish? Now that the Senate GOP caucus finally started acting as a majority party, the Democrats now understand that [Senate Min. Leader] Harry Reid backed them into a corner. ... Needless to say, Frist would be an idiot to bite at this. For one thing, agreeing to such an arrangement amounts to a validation of both the unprecedented use of the filibuster and the notion that the judicial nominees are 'extremists.'"

  >> Lefty "Digby" at Hullabaloo, on Frist's speech: "Every day that [James] Dobson and [Tony] Perkins are on television is a good day for Democrats. Keep them in the spotlight."

  >> Last Moderate Republican: "David Broder has a proposal to solve the impending filibuster showdown: the Democrats should lie down and give up. Not exactly an equitable solution." Conservative Power Line: "Broder's column can be viewed as further evidence that the Republicans do indeed have the 51 votes they need to break the filibusters."

• Getting some attention, primarily from liberal blogs, is a Time article on Pres. Bush's admin. apparently bumping U.S. delegates to the Inter-American Telecom Commis. because they supported John Kerry in '04. Linking: Eschaton; Skippy the Bush Kangaroo; DailyKos; Discourse.net; Political Animal.

  >> Lefty Steve Soto: "Something tells me the time would be ripe for Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, and perhaps even Howard Dean to build a bridge with the telecom industry right about now."

  >> Righty Charles Johnson: "The left-of-center blogosphere doesn't just call it 'nutty,' though. Over there in the fever swamp this is fascist repression of free speech, and cause for impeachment. Oh brother."

• And the New York Times profiles the yet-to-be-launched "celebrity collective" blog organized by liberal activist Arianna Huffington, the Huffington Post. Linking: L.A. Observed; Unfogged; Ed Cone; PressThink; Romenesko; Southern Appeal; PoliBlog.

  >> Matt Welch at the libertarian Reason's Hit and Run: "The pre-launch Huffington Post continues to be a rich source for the kind of unintentional comedy I haven't enjoyed since watching the likes of Lou Dobbs, C. Everett Koop and Sydney Schanberg go bonkers with dot-com greed back at the end of the last Internet publishing boom." Ann Althouse asks: "[H]ow do we know it's really them and not some assistant or P.R. person or joke-writer?

FILIBUSTERS: Who Went Nuclear First?

Liberal Josh Marshall notes that in the speech of his weekend telecast, Senate Maj. Leader Bill Frist said: "Now if Senator Reid continues to obstruct the process, we will consider what opponents call the 'nuclear option.'" Marshall responds that Frist "certainly knows, it is a phrase coined by Republicans," and links to a previoust post of his that identifies ex-Maj. Leader Trent Lott (R-MS) as the coiner.

Meanwhile, Duncan Black points out 2 instances of Frist using the term himself in 11/04, on NPR and "Fox News Sunday." Frist, to Chris Wallace: "What it basically -- it's called the nuclear option. It's really a constitutional option."

More Marshall, in the first-mentioned post: "I've been made privy to the internal communications of a number of national news organizations at which there are now running arguments over whether to go along with the Republican claim that 'nuclear option' is a Democratic epithet or term of abuse which should be banned except in cases where Democrats are directly quoted using it. So, as you're reading the coverage in the coming days, watch to see which news outfits have fallen in line with the RNC-directives."

Matt Yglesias adds: "It seems to me that if Josh Marshall's really interested in shaming the press about their cave-in to dishonest GOP Newspeak on the "nuclear option" semantics then the best way to go about it would be to print the internal communications on the subject to which he says he's been made privy. Whatever they say, I have a hard time believing they make the managers responsible look good."

Later, Marshall observes: "always a sad sight to behold. NPR joins the Times in talking a dive for the 'nuclear option' speech police."

Slate's Mickey Kaus rethinks a previous anti-filibuster post and offers a key reason "for treating judicial votes differently" from legis. affairs, "namely that the Senate's advise-and-consent votes are votes that don't involve the House in any way. That means one of the basic majority-obstructing mechanisms the Constitution provides for legislation -- the need to get two quite different legislatures to agree -- simply isn't there when it comes to voting on judges."

WSJ's James Taranto and RedState's Pejman Yousefzadeh disagree about what the 1892 SCOTUS decision in U.S. vs. Ballin means for the filibuster.

BOLTON: Not Agressive Enough?

Conservative columnist Joel Mowbray, at ConfirmBolton.com: "While it's encouraging to see [VP] Cheney ... speaking publicly, his remarks were fairly tepid ... All Cheney could muster was saying that there's no evidence to substantiate the Dems' claims; a better way to put it would have been the most honest: the Dems are lying. What the White House must do is launch a counteroffensive every bit as aggressive -- and loud -- as the Dems' smear campaign. But in order for that to happen, the White House has to want Bolton confirmed more than the Dems want him sunk. Do they?"

Lefty Oliver Willis, about the ConfirmBolton.com blog: "When [RedState co-founder Mike] Krempasky & Co. (and by association, his boss Richard Viguerie) start astroturfing, you know something's up."

Liberal Garance Franke-Ruta, at Tapped: "If he fails to be approved by the Senate to be the ambassador to the United Nations, as now appears possible, he will still hold a critical position at the State Department from which to continue doing American foreign policy real damage. Indeed, getting him out of the State Department, so that someone less temperamental and more in tune with new Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice could fill the post, seems to have been one major goal of appointing him to the UN slot in the first place. Should that fail, the question is: will State be stuck with him? Or will he be so humiliated he'll have to step down?"

TERRORISM: The Unfriendly Skies

Right-leaning Little Green Footballs points out an essay by Annie Jacobsen of Women's Wall Street, who, in July '04, wrote a widely-read essay titled "Terror in the Skies" about what seemed then to be a "dry run" for another 9/11-style hijacking. As LGF explains, the DHS "is still very interested in the possible terrorist dry run aboard Northwest flight 327; four federal agents made a special trip to L.A. to interview Jacobsen about the incident." After Jacobsen wrote her first article, the group was explained away as a Syrian musical group. Yet now DHS is interested, and Jacobsen's new article offers a number of interesting new details. Blogs for Bush and Euphoric Reality have more.

BLOGS VS THE MSM: That's Rich

Right-leaning Hugh Hewitt takes issue with the New York Times' Frank Rich's take on the Frist telecast: "Rich wrote his polemic before a word was spoken in the 'Justice Sunday' telecast he decries, but for the low sort of cultural bully that Rich prides himself on being, facts need not be introduced before the verdict is rendered. ... The deep need of the left in this country not just to oppose but to hate people of faith, exemplified by Rich's column this morning, is troubling and without precedent in the country's history."

Conservative Michelle Malkin, on Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH): "What do you call a squishy Republican?" She answers: "In the MSM thesaurus, you call him a 'maverick'" and provides links to a number of news stories. She also links to National Review's Eric Pfeiffer, who observed last week: "A Nexis search reveals the numbers favor 'maverick Republicans' by about five to one. A Google search tallies about 3,500 GOP mentions and 1,000 for Democrats, with a lot going to the late Pat Moynihan or those who are 'mavericks' by striking positions to the left of the Democratic Party. Is it that there really are that many more Republicans who have moderate viewpoints, or that the media prefers to label anyone out of step with the Republican Party's leadership a maverick?"

Tapped sums up the New York Times' right-leaning columnists: "John Tierney. Even though I stayed a right-winger despite all this evidence that it was unhealthy to be overweight, new evidence casting doubt on that conclusion proves that liberals should switch sides. David Brooks. Tierney stole my column idea -- bring back Bill Safire!"

BLOGS VS. BLOGS: A Cautionary Tale

Right-leaning pop culture blog A Small Victory's Michelle Catalano last week appeared on the conservative online radio RightTalk program, "The Citizen Journalist Report," hosted by Bill Ardolino of INDC Journal and Jeff Goldstein of Protein Wisdom. During the show, as John Hawkins notes, "Bill was asking Michele a question about atheism that was either supposed to be funny, really snide, or some combination thereof....and Michele went INSANE. I'm talking about a TOTAL MELTDOWN right there on the air. She goes on this wild rant, every third or fourth word she says is bleeped, and then says something about Bill's 'Jew partner' and hung up." It appears the appearance was staged, as Catalano follows up here, and Hawkins later posts again about how he was "taken in." Ardolino has no mention on his site, but Goldstein writes: "Evidently, our reputation is forever tarnished. And the only thing a serious CITIZEN JOURNALIST like me really has is his reputation. So the shame is palpable right now. Like some heavy odor hanging over this blog. Musky. Like the stink of wet sheep."

Vanity Fair's James Wolcott, on meeting Slate's Mickey Kaus at the L.A. Times Book Festival: "[W]e actually only stared at each other, for fear an untoward remark might make it on one of our blogs."

SOCIAL SECURITY: Cato Castigated

Left-leaning Univ. of OR econ prof Mark Thoma, author of the Economist's View blog, disputes the Cato Institute's Daily Debunker's take on the Johnson-Flake bill: "Cato stoops to making false associations in its attempt to debunk. It implies privatization solves the invented solvency crisis when it is benefit cuts that are actually at work. That Cato adopts misleading strategies sheds considerable light on the strength of its counterarguments."

Lefty Angry Bear: "Mark does a nice job of debunking every aspect of this Cato op-ed. I suspect the Cato crowd will simply ignore Mark as they ignore all real economics."

ELECTION REFORM: The ID Debate Kicks Up A Notch

RedState's Eric Erickson: "Today, Governor Sonny Perdue signed H.B. 244, a comprehensive overhaul of the state election code, which includes a provision that will cut the number of approved methods of voter identification from 17 to 6, all of which will have photographs of the voter. We see the bill as common sense. It adds a layer of protection to the integrity of our voting system. Critics point out that we have no numbers to prove people show up at polls posing as someone else and voting. They are mostly right. But, how would such comprehensive data be collected if I can show up with [fellow RedStater] Josh Trevino's power bill, say I'm Josh, and vote his ballot? Who is to prove me wrong if there is no photo identification requirement?"

Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), at DailyKos: "Today was a date of shame in Georgia and our nation, as GOP Gov. Sonny Perdue signed a bill that makes it harder to vote, by requiring a photo identification in Georgia elections. The bill would have an obvious discriminatory impact on the poor, seniors, and minorities, who are less likely to have drivers licenses and less able to have access to the new ID cards."

GAY MARRIAGE: Microsoft Goes Soft

Conservative Tom Maguire does a round-up on Microsoft's decision to withdraw support from a WA gay rights bill: "TigerHawk and Ann Althouse comment on the media slant here; the very short version is provided by Danny Carlton, whose post is headlined 'Microsoft criticized for not meddling in politics'. On the other side, let's drag in Edward of Obsidian Wings, who thinks the folks at MSFT were cowards, and Henry Abbott, who sees this as a simple human rights issue."

Noting Dem reticence to support the bill without a new amendment clarifying that the bill doesn't change marriage laws, Maguire adds, "the lawmakers were worried that passing this seemingly sensible anti-discrimination law might prompt the court to take a more expansive view of gay marriage. Put another way, fear of an activist court going beyond the bounds set by the legislature discouraged the legislature from advancing the bounds (don't give the courts an inch, or they'll take a mile)."

IN THE STATES: Toward The Jersey Giants?

Entertainment Weekly founder Jeff Jarvis: "Well, my state has agreed to spend a fortune to keep the Giants in the Meadowlands. I say that a condition of the deal must be to change the team's names to the Jersey Giants. ... Hey, Jersey bloggers, let's swarm 'em. I just sent this email to Acting Gov. Codey, the director of external affairs for the Sports & Exposition Authority, and to my state legislators": "If you're going to spend millions in taxpayers' money building a new stadium for the Giants, the least you can do is make changing their name to the Jersey Giants a condition of the deal." Jarvis includes links to help readers to follow his lead."

MO-based Radical Republican sizes up the MO SEN '06 race:

On GOP Sen. Jim Talent: "The inherent advantages of incumbency aside, Talent has been a diligent, conscientious freshman Senator, and lacks an obvious weakness for an opponent to exploit. The numbers also favor Talent, as Missouri is increasingly becoming a Republican state."

On MO GOV '04 Dem nominee/Aud. Claire McCaskill: "It is no secret that being elected governor is McCaskill's life ambition, and she has passed on Senate races in the past, when she presumably would have been a strong candidate (1992, 1998). However, McCaskill ruffled a lot of feathers in the Democratic Party when she ousted [ex-Gov. Bob] Holden in 2004 and proceeded to lose the general election, and the nomination in 2008 is not McCaskill's for the asking. ... Whether McCaskill will let party leaders railroad her into a Senate race next year is anyone's guess. Who knows, if she runs maybe even McCaskill's "hero"Howard Dean will stop by for a visit..."

MISCELLANY: Maybe Bush Is Just Mindful Of Having Good Luck

Davie, FL Mayor Tom Truex has a blog, though one without a comments feature and while one may find past posts in the archives, no actual permalinks per se. Most of his posts are concerned with local events, such as this one: "I may be prejudiced, but I think my wife and mother-in-law are great cooks. Some of their best dishes were featured (together with about a hundred others) at Davie's annual Generations of Taste. This event is hosted by the Davie Historical Society at the Old Davie School. The room was packed, as always, for this event."

Conservative Wizbang reports on a story that "isn't getting as much play. Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) is quietly pushing a bill that would gut the National Weather Service's public website, leaving the field open for the two major private suppliers of weather information, Accuweather and The Weather Channel. ... Dave Halliday's really the go-to guy on this story, though. He smells blood (well, money), and he's on it like a shark. He's putting together the pieces of a puzzle that, at the least, do NOT make Senator Santorum look very good, and show just how corrosive an influence corporate money can be on politics."

JuliusBlog posts a large number of photos of Bush patting or rubbing the heads of bald men, and comment: "Is this part of an old frat ritual, or just a display of his concept of 'humor'? It seems like every time he sees a bald man, he can't control the irresistible urge to reach with his hand. ... That is so 'presidential.' Way to go!"

"Armando" at Daily Kos, on Pope Benedict XVI's inaugural homily: "I am a lapsed Catholic, so my opinion does not matter much, and I think the Pope still has a lot of work to do to win over some of the Catholic flock and to convince that he is indeed a force for unity -- but the tone he struck provides a sharp contrast to the doings in Louisville tonight."

The Raw Story website posts Secret Service documents reporting when James "Jeff Gannon" Guckert visited the WH. Raw Story's John Byrne notes: "Guckert made more than two dozen excursions to the White House when there were no scheduled briefings. On many of these days, the Press Office held press gaggles aboard Air Force One -- which raises questions about what Guckert was doing at the White House. On other days, the president held photo opportunities. On at least fourteen occasions, Secret Service records show either the entry or exit time missing. Generally, the existing entry or exit times correlate with press conferences; on most of these days, the records show that Guckert checked in but was never processed out."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Will Bloggers Bolt MSNBC?

Joho the Blog's David Weinberger, on quitting the MSNBC what's-in-the-blogs segment: "What makes the blogosphere interesting to me is not that there are moderate left and right voices talking about mainstream topics. Mainstream major stories are about issues such as freakish celebrity pedophiles, a spit match over a fight from 30 years ago that the press is hoping to revive, and whatever unfortunate child has been reported missing and presumed (better for the story) murdered. I'm in the blogosphere to escape from this degradation of values. In the ninety seconds MSNBC gives over to blogging, they want to pair A-Listers into a he-said/she-said report on a Major Topic. Yippee for the A-Team! You do two of those and the last of the three segments should be something "fun," i.e., humorous and trivial because the news no longer knows how to operate without a closing joke. It's downright pathological." Ex-colleagues on MSNBC Jeff Jarvis (who has had it better than Weinberger) and Ed Cone (who has some of the same feelings as Weinberger) offer comment.

LEST WE FORGET: Yet Another Example Of MSM Pathology

"Matzah!", the latest musical cartoon by the JibJab team, which produced the popular "This Land" parody of the WH '04 race last year, is now up. It's Passover-themed and includes a rapping Abraham, among other goofiness.

Posted by at 04:36 PM

April 22, 2005

4/22: The Powell Of One

4/21 was one of those a.m.'s where no big stories were attracting a broad spectrum of commentary, fragmenting the blogospheric debate. Today it's nearly the opposite 2 major stories being hotly debated: 1) ex-Sec/State Colin Powell's apparent involvement in the John Bolton fight, and 2) a report (actually from 4/21) that Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) may want the GOP to hold off on breaking the filibuster.

Conservative bloggers are understandably discouraged, the liberal bloggers, understandably encouraged. The conservatives are most concerned with confirming Pres. Bush's judges, and some have been weakening on his nod; the liberals aren't as invested in either fight, and if anything just enjoy seeing the right not get what it wants.

Other interesting things going on: a new pro-Bolton activist blog, an unlikely bipartisan effort in the Senate that brings rare agreement throughout the blogosphere, and cats. Yes, cats.

TRACKBACKS: He's Thinking, He's Thinking!

Where the blog swarm is headed, who's taking part, and what they're saying:

• This a.m., the Washington Post and New York Times both have big stories on Powell. Linking: Hit and Run; Betsy's Page; Brothers Judd; Stygius; Suburban Guerilla; Political Animal; PoliPundit; The Moderate Voice; PoliBlog; The Corner.

  >> The Left Coaster: "Payback is a bitch, ain't it? So much for that GOP and White House bullshit that the opposition to Bolton was nothing more than partisan politics." Liberal Talking Points Memo: "The truth is that Powell is very much not the only Republican foreign policy heavyweight working in private to scuttle Bolton's nomination. But the degree to which he's going public is sort of extraordinary. ... Republican senators looking to deny the White House this nomination need some partisan cover; and Powell just gave it to them."

  >> Right-leaning Belgravia Dispatch: "How typical of the way Powell is apt to handle a difficult situation and end up helping no one: not Bolton, whose nomination he may have scuttled; not Bush ... not Lugar and other [cmte GOPers] who may have just gone through a week-long controversy for nothing; and finally not himself. Powell plays the good soldier by saying nothing publicly, and can't torpedo Bolton without being immediately fingered for it in the Post. He gets no credit either for public forthrightness ... or for swallowing those doubts out of loyalty to the administration he just left." Conservative Beltway Buzz: "A question worth asking is how the Times and Post acquired their Powell stories. Did either [GOP Sen. Chuck] Hagel or [GOP Sen. Lincoln] Chafee's office pass along the scoop ... to add Powell's public credibility to the debate, therefore making a 'no' vote from either of these senators more palatable? Or, did it come from Powell's office, with the former secretary of state desiring a role in the Bolton debate while still appearing to be an honest broker?"

• The Hill's Alex Bolton broke the Santorum story on 4/21, and it is to that story which everyone links: John Hawkins; No More Mister Nice Blog; Whiskey Bar; Wampum; Power Line; Political Animal; Talking Points Memo; The Corner.

  >> Righty James Joyner is somewhat conciliatory: "The Republicans are right on the issue -- the vast majority of Americans support the idea that the president's nominees should get an up-or-down vote -- but they've done a poor job of making their case. The Democrats have tradition on their side here and they've bolstered their position by getting the pejorative description 'nuclear option' to stick." But on the merits he agrees with Captain's Quarters' Ed Morrissey, who writes: "I will not further support this leadership group until they can start demonstrating some basic competence. If the majority of the Republican caucus insists on maintaining mediocrity as the standard, then they can suffer along."

  >> Lefty Chris Bowers at MyDD: "This anti-judiciary narrative has been a staple of the conservative movement since the 1950's. All Democrats have done is finally reveal one of the ugliest underbellies of the conservative movement to the public. If only we had a Noise Machine large enough to reveal the entire thing." Liberal Tapped's Sam Rosenfeld doubts it's the polls: "I suspect something else is going on here: A large number of Republican senators -- far larger than the number who've publicly expressed ambivalence -- simply don't want to pick this fight. They (reasonably, from their perspective) don't think ramming through a tiny handful of judicial nominees is worth the sacrifice of being able to pass more GOP-friendly legislation in the coming months."

BOLTON: You're Nobody Until Somebody Blogs You

In past weeks, National Review Online has arguably led the conservative side of the fight to confirm Bolton via its blog The Corner (much as liberal think tanker Steve Clemons' Washington Note has fought against him). And in past months, web-based GOP activists RedState have maintained the blog ConfirmThem to support Bush's jud. nominees.

As of 4/21 p.m., RedState has launched a new blog -- ConfirmBolton -- and several of its key contributors are writers at NRO, including Michael Ledeen, Frank Gaffney and David Frum. Also contributing are ACU pres. David Keene and conservative activist Gary Bauer.

A reader e-mails National Review's The Corner: "I was an intern" for then-Chief Dep. Maj. Whip. Denny Hastert in '95, and "I can remember on more than one occasion people being on the phone with our seemingly teddy-bearish, behind-the-scenes, now-Speaker, and let me tell you: he could tear people a new one; I witnessed 30-year-old LAs weeping, and I mean shaking. ... With all my friends doing similar internships at the time, this seemed standard fare."

CAMPAIGNS: Bloggers Of Fortune

We're a day or two late in reporting it, but John Edwards' 2nd podcast is available.

Conservative Save the GOP identifies Blogging for Bryant the 1st pro-GOP SEN '06 blog, and links to a few blogs that had an impact in the '04. cycle. Liberal Micah Sifry at Personal Democracy Forum reports on a few Dem campaigns that have hired bloggers to work for them, calling it a "cottage industry" inspired by ex-Dean blogger Matthew Gross.

A story by the New York Sun's Josh Gerstein attracts the attention of a few conservative bloggers, including the widely-read Power Line. Gerstein reports that Sen. Ted Kennedy's (D-MA) brother-in-law, Raymond Reggie, tape-recorded conversations with Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) finance chair David Rosen. The also-widely-read Instapundit wonders if the story will have "legs," and adds: "The Sun is certainly punching above its weight."

Pro-Rep. Mark Kennedy (R-MN) blog Kennedy Vs. The Machine posts the text of a "possible push poll from (presumably)" the SEN campaign of ex-Sen. Rod Grams (R). The poll touts Grams' accomplishments and downplays Kennedy's.

Meanwhile, conservative blog The First Ring notes that the MN CD GOP convos begin 4/23. Kennedy will be there; Grams likely will not. One reason: "While I was at the Minnesota for Marriage rally on Wednesday, I overheard a few activists say that Rod Grams may be contemplating a run against the current GOP chairman Ron Eibensteiner. This isn't the first time I've heard this rumor."

BLOGS VS. THE MSM: The FCC Is Our Mortal Enemy

Whiskey Bar's "Billmon" cites a WSJ piece indicating the NAB is concerned about new FCC chair Kevin Martin. Regarding the Ann Coulter cover story, "Billmon" writes: "I argued that the limo liberals at Time Warner were essentially offering protection money to the conservatives," but this "makes me suspect that statement might be more literally true than I originally thought."

Liberal Blah3: "I just watched a debate about the legislation that passed in Texas that would bar gay men and lesbians from adopting children, and I took note of the graphics that were shown while each side of the debate was talking. While the representative of the GLBT community was speaking," the chyron stated: "Texas House Passes Bill That Would Ban Gay Foster Parents." Blah3 continues: "And when his opponent, a woman from the Texas Eagle Forum spoke," it put under her the words: "A Fit Parent."

Centrist Jeff Jarvis quotes from B&C's blog, on the "Catch-22ism" of changes to the FCC complaint process: "[I]t's now EASY to file complaints with our national nannies -- damn, just what we needed: a way to make it easy for the prudes and prigs to kneecap the First Amendment and waste bureaucrat-lawyers' time and taxpayer money every time somebody says "damn."

Righty Don Luskin provides links to several econobloggers' "refutations" of New York Times' columnist Paul Krugman's recent column on "stagflation."

Classical Values explores the ethics of what NYTimes.com will and will not allow to be published in its online forums, and considers the ethics of deleting comments from blogs.

BLOGS VS. THE WORLD: But Wait -- The FEC Is Also Our Mortal Enemy

RedState's Mike Krempasky: "Very, very good news to report on the keep-your-hands-off-our-interweb front" -- i.e., defending bloggers from FEC regulation. 1st, Rep. Jeb Hensarling's (R-TX) HR 1606 has its first Dem co-sponsor in Rep. Tim Ryan (D-OH). But the "real gem" is that Senate Min. Leader Harry Reid's S 678 is being co-sponsored by "RedState favorite Dr. Tom Coburn" (R-OK). Krempasky: "Repeat after me, 'Hi, I'm calling to ask the Senator to support the Reid-Coburn bill to protect freedom on the internet.' You probably won't hear a sentence like that again in your lifetime -- let's make this one count." Power Line links approvingly. DailyKos links to RedState and comments: "Ha ha, crazy bedfellows and all."

MISCELLANY: When George Met Grover

Tapped's Sam Rosenfeld: "If I'm wrong and the Senate Republicans do proceed with the nuclear option next week, we'll get to watch as this fight turns into an amazing one-stop shop for shameless displays of modern conservatism's New Left-style identity politics," including Senate Maj. Leader Bill Frist delpoying "anti-Christian bigotry" and deployment of the "conservo-race card" re: African-American nominee Janice Brown.

DLC's Marshall Wittmann notes that liberal financier/activist George Soros addressed ATR pres. Grover Norquist's Wed. meeting on 4/20, a fact which the Washington Times "buries" in its 4/21 Inside Politics column.

Right-leaning Balloon Juice picks up on the TNR article we mentioned yesterday: "A pretty perceptive piece by Andrew Sullivan about what I have been feeling as of late regarding the GOP. Sullivan creates a new dichotomy for discussion- conservatives of faith and conservatives of doubt."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Truth About Cats And Dogs

For those unfamiliar with the blogosphere, it may be worth mentioning (though it certainly may also not) that a popular end-of-week blog topic is one's own cats, known as "Friday Cat-Blogging". (The linked text goes to a Google search for the term, which turns up nearly 33K results.) The blog search engine Technorati has even set up a "tag" specifically for tracking such posts (though it is not in widespread use). A couple of Friday Cat-Blogging from this a.m.: Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum's cat, in a graveyard; liberal Earl Bockenfeld cat-blogs and provides a number of links to more cat-blogging.

As per Google, "Friday Dog Blogging" is nowhere near as popular, with just 266 results.

LEST WE FORGET: Equal Time

For the edification of our left-leaning readers, Greg Beato, the sometimes-Wonkette, shows where Google Maps finds the most "assholes" in DC. And for our readers on the right, Tim Blair does a brief fisking of a brief letter from John Kerry.

NOTES AND ERRATA

The 4/19 Blogometer mistook liberal activist/blogger Nico Pitney for ex-Dean adviser/blogger Nicco Mele. Won't happen again.

Posted by at 12:39 PM

April 21, 2005

4/21: Everything And Nothing

As of this a.m. Pope Benedict XVI was still attracting plenty of conversation from across the spectrum, from his implication for U.S. politics to the way the MSM has covered his ascendance. Emotions have cooled a bit, of course. Coming back in a big way: Ann Coulter and Time magazine. Earlier this week, it was mostly conservatives defending her re: the cover photo. Time's John Cloud came under fire from some liberal orgs, and now he's done an interview with CJR. The result: The liberal blogs kick him around some more.

House Maj. Leader Tom DeLay and U.N. Amb.-designate John Bolton continue to simmer. In a bit of bad news for DeLay, a few more conservative bloggers would like to see him go; time will tell if that emerges as a consensus, or whether it'll just lead to more simmering.

And, is there a way to triangulate the impasse between bloggers and the MSM? PressThink thinks about it.

TRACKBACKS: Pope Jeffords? Zarqawi Has The Filibuster? We're Doomed!

Where the blog swarm is headed, who's taking part, and what they're saying:

• Getting attention: a New York Times report on what impact the pope might have on "'life' issues like abortion" in the U.S., and a Washington Post story giving an overview of how consensus emerged on Benedict inside the conclave. Among the linkers: Ann Althouse; Betsy's Page; Cracker Squire; Suburban Guerrilla ; PunditGuy; Population: One.

  >> National Review's K.J. Lopez, at The Corner: "The new pope will likely talk about abortion being immoral. This will make Catholic politicians who support legal abortion increasingly uncomfortable. Thank you, thank you, New York Times." Right-leaning Dean Esmay, calls the Post story an "uncommonly decent and agenda-free recounting of the tale of Cardinal Ratzinger's recent elevation."

  >> Liberal Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo: "I understand that the voting cardinals who took part in the conclave that elected Benedict XVI as the new pope took a oath of perpetual secrecy about what happened in the conclave. And yet many of them now seem willing to discuss rather precise details of what occurred on the record for the daily papers. I'll let the canon lawyers decide whether that's a problem for the cardinals. But it makes for good journalism."

• Getting a bit of play: A New York Times story on the debate over jud. filibusters from 4/20. Referenced by: Whiskey Bar; OurSenate; Confirm Them.

  >> Conservative radio talker Hugh Hewitt: "If the filibuster continues, it will spread to Supreme Court -- hard-left activist Nan Aron has guaranteed it -- and the deserting senators will have the responsibility for that on their heads as well. If the Democrats are going to run the chamber, it might as well be done formally so that the public can assess the blame for the gridlock."

  >> Liberal Tapped's Sam Rosenfeld attempts to separate the "sure no votes" from the "fence-sitters" from the "unknowns": "Bill Frist's presidential whims, combined with his reliably clumsy negotiating approach, are putting an awful lot of Republicans in an awfully unwelcome position."

• Big news yesterday afternoon, now falling off, is the AP's report that Jeffords will not seek re-election, and the New York Times' treatment of same. Among the linkers: MyDD; The Moderate Voice; The Left Coaster; Megan McArdle.

  >> Conservative Outside The Beltway: "I haven't seen the polling in Vermont but I can't imagine too many Republicans are pleased with his betrayal in 2001. A man with no party has little chance in American electoral politics. While I have nothing for contempt for the slimeball Jeffords, I wish his wife well in her battle with cancer."

  >> Liberal DailyKos: "It's Vermont. Dems will be the prohibitive favorites. But it's always a pain to defend an open seat."

• Washington Times: "Recurrent intelligence reports say al Qaeda terrorist Abu Musab Zarqawi has obtained a nuclear device or is preparing a radiological explosive -- or dirty bomb -- for an attack, according to U.S. officials, who also say analysts are unable to gauge the reliability of the information's sources." Linking: Winds of Change; Little Green Footballs; James Joyner; Clayton Cramer; Argghhh!.

  >> Counterterrorism Blog: While reports of terrorists possessing either an RDD or a nuclear weapon are bad news, credible intelligence of terrorists overseas possessing the latter would be cause for defensive measures approaching a lock-down of our borders and a massive increase in federal and policing activity. ... So in a resource constrained environment, how to prioritize and act on information that mentions radioactive material? Is the threat nearly a show-stopper or is it simply newsworthy?"

  >> Lefty Juan Cole: "I find this report hard to believe, and find the likelihood that Zarqawi could do it low. But I guess it is alarming that anyone is even talking about it. Iraqi guerrilla groups have begun speaking of the need to hit the United States on its own soil in revenge for Fallujah and other operations."

DELAY: If You're Tom DeLay, Don't Read This

Conservative UCLA law prof Stephen Bainbridge, on DeLay's criticism of Justice Anthony Kennedy (see 4/20 Blogometer): "Is the enemy of my enemy necessarily my friend? I don't have much in common with or much use for most of Tom DeLay's critics, but I have to admit that the dude has always creeped me out a little. Now, however, he seems to have gone beyond the bend. ... DeLay has become an embarrassment to the Conservative movement. (Far more so than Newt ever was, in my book.) It's time to throw him to the wolves."

GOP VA prosecutor John Behan links and adds: "I'm quickly coming around to [this] view."

FreeRepublic has a thread devoted to news of the investigation. Plenty of Freepers think the GOP has gone soft and that DeLay is "sinking," but not a few argue that it's a wise strategic move, and that DeLay will be "exonerated."

DailyKos' "pontificator," on reports that disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff got DeLay box seats for the Three Tenors: "If this story is true, Delay's only hope is the Ken Lay defense: 'B-b-b-b-ut I had no idea what my PAC that I myself set up was doing accounting-wise.' Straw -- meet camel's back!"

BOLTON: A Character Almost-Witness Emerges

At The Corner, National Review's Rich Lowry writes about a conversation with Jayant Kalotra, pres. of the firm that employed Bolton and sub-contracted with Melody Townsel, who claims Bolton "chased and threw things at her." Kalotra, asked if he believes Townsel: "I don't. It's a small company and we hear of these things. I didn't know or hear of anything like that." In subsequent posts (scroll up) he offers more quotes from those close to the situation who doubt Townsel's statements.

Centrist Roger L. Simon, on the continually delayed Bolton vote: "By playing the child's game of partisan politics, these same Senators are ultimately helping to destroy the reputation of the very institution they think they are trying to preserve -- the United Nations. What dumbbells."

Conservative Power Line: "Inevitably, as frustration mounts over Bolton and the stalled judicial nominees, we're also starting to hear criticism of Majority Leader Frist. I don't know whether Frist failed to take measures that could have prevented Voinovich from acting as he did, and I suspect that Frist's critics don't know either. But I do know how difficult it is to enforce unity among Senate Republicans."

BLOGS VS. THE MSM: The Third Way?

At his PressThink blog, NYU J-prof Jay Rosen posts an essay by journalist/blogger Chris Nolan which attempts to distinguish a 3rd category between MSM-employed journalists and bloggers. That is, journalists who use their blogs to do real journalism -- which Nolan calls "stand-alone journalists." His key example is Talking Points Memo's Marshall. Nolan offers a definition: "For me, a stand alone journalist is someone who works to get the stories they find interesting told in an honest and forthright manner without the benefit of working for a larger news outlet. That doesn't mean they're objective or impartial; it means they're honest about their points of view or assumptions."

Righty Ed Morrissey of Captain's Quarters, whose reporting on the Canadian Liberal Party sponsorship scandal (aka "Adscam") -- this post in particular -- dislodged a Canadian court's embargo on politically damaging testimony, comments: "Perhaps the better way to create distinctions isn't by labelling the blog or the blogger but the post or the thread. There are times when I perform stand-alone journalism; other times, I'm a self-published pundit; the small amount left amounts to a very poorly secured diary. The revolution in newsroom thinking won't be an acknowledgement that a handful of bloggers are stand-alone journalists. It will come when people finally realize that all bloggers can be stand-alone journalists if and when they choose to be."

POPE REDUX: The MSM Vs. The Pope

Right-leaning Just One Minute: "Is it true that new Pope 'intervened in the 2004 US election campaign ordering bishops to deny communion to abortion rights supporters including presidential candidate John Kerry,' as reported by the AFP? Not really. As in, 'not really close.'" He links to an online essay by traditionalist Catholic Kathleen Redle, who criticized Joseph Ratzinger in '04 for flip-flopping on whether Kerry should be denied communiton. Stephen Bainbridge defends the no-communion stance: "[W]hy does it surprise anyone that the Catholic Church's chief theologian might think that a politician who publicly flouts core teachings of the Church should not be regarded as a Catholic in good standing? The Church is not a cafeteria, after all, from which one can pick and choose the doctrines one likes."

Is That Legal? catches the New York Times mistakenly stating that Hitler Youth membership became compulsory in 1941, when compulsory membership was enacted in 1936.

Right Wing News and Power Line both notice an odd Reuters headline about Nazi-themed graffiti on an Argentinian cathedral door that reads in part: "The choice of ... Ratzinger as the new Pope divides Latin America, a region where he battled leftist priests and whose poor and hungry often cannot afford to follow Roman Catholic doctrine."

John Hinderaker, from the latter blog: "Reuters appears to believe that this sort of 'division' is the natural consequence of naming a 'conservative' as Pope. ... Most of all, though, the claim that Latin America's "poor and hungry often cannot afford to follow Roman Catholic doctrine" is astonishing. This is a whole new perspective on history: Catholicism is a country club faith that is very expensive to pursue, and therefore is available only to the affluent!"

Liberal Matthew Yglesias writes, Pope Benedict XVI's essay on relativism (PDF) "seems to have as its main target certain kinds of ecumenical tendencies that might be inclined to suggest that, somehow, Catholicism is right for Catholics, but maybe some other religion is right for other people. ... While I'm strongly discinclined to agree that adherence to orthodox Catholicism is an important thing to do in life, his case against wish-washy Catholicism seems persuasive enough to me. It's either right or it isn't. If that's relativism, then I'm against it, too."

COULTER REDUX: There's Something About Ann

Markos Moulitsas quotes from an Eric Alterman post about Time's Coulter cover, and announces he's cancelled his Time subscription: "Really, if you still have a subscription to Time, it's time to call it quits. ... I'm not saying boycott Time because of the Coulter cover. Every publication will run something offensive to someone at any given time. I'm saying boycott Time because it has systematically shut out liberal voices from its pages. And there's no reason our money should make its way into their pockets."

CJR Daily's Brian Montopoli interviews Time's John Cloud, and answers himself against liberal complaints, including those of Media Matters' David Brock. Cloud defends the article and compares it to putting Michael Moore on the cover in early '04.

Lefty Oliver Willis is not satisfied: "When Time put Moore on its cover, that was news because Fahrenheit was the top movie in America" and was reelvant to the election, while Coulter has recently written "collection of columns in which she put forward the argument that liberals should be beat about the head with baseball bats. ... I do wonder if [Cloud's] cluelessness is intentional or if it's the result of graft. Who knows nowadays? What I do know is that journalism is broken in America and John Cloud is the poster boy."

Liberal Daily Howler: "[W]hen Time takes our craziest pundit and tries to mainstream her through its cover, we're seeing the triumph of 'idiot culture,' in which 'the weird, the stupid, the coarse and untrue are becoming our cultural ideal.' Put more simply, we're seeing things falling apart."

Conservative Slublog compares Time covers featuring Dems and GOPers and decides the GOPers don't get a fair shake.

SOCIAL SECURITY: Don't Call It A Comeback

Blogs for Bush's Matt Margolis notes Pres. Bush's interview with CNBC's Ron Insana on the subejct of personal accounts, and comments: "It's good to see Bush standing behind personal retirement accounts. I was worried that he was getting soft." MyDD announces a Louisville, KY rally, coinciding with Frist's telecast for the FRC. to "speak out against this outrage."

PREVIEW: The Shape Of Blog Posts To Come?

Considering the blogospheric attention to Andrew Sullivan's arguments on the nexus between religion and politics (see yesterday's Blogometer), his essay in the 5/2-9 New Republic -- "Crisis of Faith: How fundamentalism is splitting the GOP" is likely to get a lot of coverage.

Sullivan writes: "Conservatism isn't over. But it has rarely been as confused. ... As Republicans found that it was hard to reduce the size of government, they decided to stop worrying and deploy it for their own goals. As a result, Republicans now support institutions they previouslyvilified." Beca

On the Terri Schiavo case: "Crusades ... are not means of persuasion. They are means of coercion. And so it is no accident that the crusading Republicans are impatient with institutional obstacles in their way. The judiciary, which is designed to check executive and legislative decisions, is now the first object of attack. Bare-knuckled character assassination of opponents is part of the repertoire: Just look at the swift-boat smears of John Kerry. ... Politics becomes war, letting a key Republican leader like DeLay can genially boast that his supporters are armed."

More: "If we are fighting such a conservatism of faith abroad--and that is the core of the war on Islamist terrorism--then why should it be so hard to confront it in much milder forms at home? This was, once upon a time, the central conservative calling. Why not again?"

More still: "It's telling that none of the biggest talents in the Republican Party will ever be its nominee for president. John McCain, Arnold Schwarzenegger, George Pataki, and Rudy Giuliani could never survive the fundamentalist-dominated primaries"

He concludes: "What I am saying is that, unless the religious presence within Republicanism becomes less dogmatic and fundamentalist, the conservative coalition as we have known it cannot long endure."

He leads: "Today's conservatives support limited government. But they believe the federal government can intervene in a state court's decisions in a single family's struggle over life and death. They believe in restraining government spending. But they have increased such spending by a mind-boggling 33 percent in a mere four years."

MISCELLANY: Cafeteria Liberals

Since the last time we checked, a new WH '08 Meetup group has been created: Wesley Clark 2008.

The ubiquitous Josh Marshall, announcing his new website: "As I've mentioned several times now, we're launching a new site, TPMCafe.com, a companion site to Talking Points Memo. It will include a new group blog with an exciting list of contributors, a handful of topic-specific blogs like our Special Edition Bankruptcy Blog and discussion areas where we're going to try to facilitate more of what readers allowed us to do in tracking the Social Security debate in the first months of this year.We're hoping to launch next month. It will be a work-in-progress and, with your feedback, we'll make changes and let the site evolve as we go."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: What Do Crack Dealers And Think Tankers Have In Common?

Instapundit's Glenn Reynolds comments on a chapter from the book "Freakonomics" titled "Why do drug dealers still live with their moms?" Without reading it, Reynolds suggests the "willingness of people to trade away economic benefits for status" within a given community. INDC Journal's Bill Ardolino agrees, and compares them those in the DC "egghead set" who get six-figure educations to land "sub six-figure" jubs: "Is getting a masters degree from the Kennedy School of Government and taking a job at Brookings admirable? Sure. Odd? In my opinion, for the financially dependent, you bet -- the ROI is pretty thin. I'd almost rather be a New Jack Hustler."

LEST WE FORGET: Fark You

Semi-blog/message board Fark asks its readers to Photoshop covers for pulp fiction/horror titles. Not all are work-safe or tasteful (or of equal quality) but the all the submissions can be seen here. More than a few take shots at the president, such as this one or this one. Others, the junior senator from NY. And some are inside jokes at Fark that are still kinda funny, like this. And some are just bizarre.

NOTES AND ERRATA

A correction: A misunderstood adjective was used in the 4/18 Blogometer to describe WorldNetDaily, a right-leaning alternative news site. We intended to convey that MSM news outlets will wait for confirmation by the AP or a local TV station before repeating a story originating at WND. What we had here was a failure to communicate.

Posted by at 12:40 PM

April 20, 2005

4/20: The Drawing Of The Three

In the past 24 hours, debate surrounding the rise, potential rise, and potential fall of 3 conservative men prevailed in all corners of the political blogospahere: Pope Benedict XVI (nee Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger), U.N. Amb. nominee John Bolton, and House Maj. Leader Tom DeLay, respectively. Just after the Blogometer's deadline yesterday, the white smoke went up, the bells rang out, and that dominated the discussion throughout most of the day. But starting last night, DeLay and Bolton were back in the newspapers, and hence back in the blogosphere.

The Pope got by far the most coverage, but the big announcement is over, and it's down to commentary now. So we lead with DeLay and Bolton:

TRACKBACKS: Outrageous Fortune

Where the blog swarm is headed, who's taking part, and what they're saying:

• DeLay's appearance on Tony Snow's radio show -- as reported by the AP -- yields this much-quoted line: "We've got Justice Kennedy writing decisions based upon international law, not the Constitution of the United States? That's just outrageous. And not only that, but he said in session that he does his own research on the Internet? That is just incredibly outrageous." Several bloggers point out that web-based Lexis-Nexis and Westlaw are key legal resources. Anyway, if there's one way to get the blogosphere to unite against you, it's to criticize the Internet. Linking: Begging To Differ; Steve Soto; Carpundit; Life in Bush's America; Truth Serum; Brendan Nyhan; TBogg; Eschaton.

  >> Left-leaning Jeralyn Merritt: "Words of advice for DeLay: Zip it. You've become a caricature and a laughing stock. You are making a mockery both of the office you hold and your party. You're on your last leg. Is it too much to ask that you go out with a little dignity?" Right-leaning GWU law prof Orin Kerr: "What's next? I fully expect DeLay to introduce H.R. 8615, The Stop Anthony Kennedy From Using the Internet Act of 2005."

  >> Conservative Mark A. Kilmer is one of the few to side with DeLay: "By using Tom DeLay, a media villain, as the critic, Kennedy is made to be a media saint." He is also one of the few to focus on the 1st part of DeLay's statement. Noting that DeLay brought up the possibility of jud. impeachment, he adds: "It seems rather radical, enforcing the good behavior clause, but it is a Congressional responsibility."

• Considering how important the Bolton hearings have been to Dems and GOPers inside the Beltway, the Blogometer has been a little surprised to see that his controversial nomination has attracted so little buzz in the blogosphere. But Sen. George Voinovich's (R-OH) surprise request for more time to consider the nod finally caught the attention of both the right and left. The Washington Post and AP all have stories getting plenty of links: Power Line; The Left Coaster; War and Piece; ThinkProgress; Captain's Quarters. Crooks and Liars has posted video of the meeting. This a.m., Beltway Buzz reports that Voinovich is still open to supporting Bolton.

  >> Conservative Pejman Yousefzadeh sums up what many conservatives think: "Since when was there all of this concern about "imperious behavior" among the political classes in Washington? Those who are voting on the nomination -- and I include Senators from both sides of the aisle in this judgment -- are some of the most "imperious" people around. Who would not bet dollars to doughnuts that the vast majority of them are shockingly insensitive, rude, irate and tyrannical towards their subordinates ... And yet, John Bolton is the only one who is given a time-out--both figuratively and literally?"

  >> Steve Clemons of the New America Foundation has been pushing the Senate to delay consideration on Bolton all week at his blog, The Washington Note, where he writes this a.m.: "There are many in a sort of stupor after succeeding in achieving a delay. This is NOT a time to rest. This is the time to both broaden the case regarding John Bolton's past performance and to consolidate and organize the rather large scope of problems we do know. With others, I will be on this case. But this morning, I'm going to buy some grass sod in rural Maryland and plant it in front of my house in Dupont Circle."

  >> And right-leaning Balloon Juice embodies much of the blogosphere's previous absence from this debate: "I have to confess I have not been paying attention to the Bolton nomination at all, and this story doesn't clear things up at all. Exactly what is going on? Is this just politics as usual, or is this a flawed candidate?"

THE POPE I: Godwin's Law In Excelsis

Today's Blogometer could run the risk of going overboard with Joseph Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI coverage. Without linking to everything in sight -- and we do mean everything -- here's the general assessment:

Anti-Ratzinger sentiment (and invective) is widespread on the left, with phrases like "Goebbels of the Vatican" highlighting Ratzinger's association with the Hitler Youth. But others are more thoughtful while considering the same issues. Ratzinger's strict support of church doctrine -- on homosexuality, abortion, women priests -- are also blog fodder, as is the pedophilia scandal. The consensus is, as lefty econoblogger Max Sawicky puts it: "Oh great. Pope Wingnut the First."

Right-leaning bloggers fall into a couple different camps. Some Catholic bloggers are very pleased and even a little smug. Less socially-conservative right-leaners are less enthused, but grudgingly accept Ratzinger's election. Cut on the Bias headlines a post: "Love the one you're with." Some non-Catholics sort out what it all means, while others are just pleased it will annoy the left. At least a couple dozen conservative bloggers seize on a particularly nasty post in the DailyKos comments.

Plenty of bloggers simply post the news or provide single-post running updates ("live-blogging"), including Michelle Malkin and "Citizen Smash", who provides a useful round-up of the left-right debate.

THE POPE II: A Few Of The More Interesting Points

Centrist Andrew Sullivan: "I was trying to explain last night to a non-Catholic just how dumb-struck many reformist Catholics are by the elevation of Ratzinger. And then I found a way to explain. This is the religious equivalent of having had four terms of George W. Bush only to find that his successor as president is Karl Rove. Get it now?"

Non-Catholic Bill Hobbs writes: "I am frustrated and angered with the repeated questions about whether the new Pope Benedict XVI will move away from the doctrinal stances of his predecessor, will 'moderate' his stances on various issues (the most often mentioned are birth control, abortion and homosexuality) or "move toward consensus" with liberal segments of the Catholic Church. ... One of the things the mainstream secular media never seemed to quite understand about Pope John Paul II was that his stances on such issues were rooted in his understanding of eternal, unchanging truth. ... If it was sin in the first century AD, it is sin now and will be sin a millenia hence. Eternal truths are eternal truths."

Libertarian QandO's Dale Franks quotes from the New York Times story on the new Pope, and replies: "The new pope was 'been the church's doctrinal watchdog'. You know, the narrow-minded inquisitor, always sniffing out heresy. He was 'a conservative, intellectual clone of the late pontiff', not a man with his own deeply felt convictions, just a shallow copy of his boss. And, of course, he wasn't just a defender of traditional orthodoxy, he was 'ultraconservative', which is usually a code word for 'whacko'" He then quotes the Washington Post's version, and comments: "Evidently it is possible to convey exactly the same information without editorializing, or slinging around terms that are laden with negative implications. Who knew?"

Micah Sifry links to a BlogPulse trend survey, noticing that the terms "Ratzinger" and "pope" took off uber-exponentially the day before yesterday, leaving the other known candidates far, far behind.

BLOGGERS VS. BLOGGERS: Everyone's Sullying Themselves

The Blogometer recently recently referred to Sullivan as an "ex-Catholic," but today we notice that he's alluded to his own Catholicism in the present tense several times since Ratzinger was Poped. We're not the only ones. Ace of Spades HQ tracks down his conflicting statements, and adds: "Let us say, charitably, that Sullivan is a rather passionate fellow." Righty John Hawkins: "If someone as openly hostile to religious people as Andrew Sullivan is furious about Ratzinger becoming Pope, then that's obviously a sign that he's a great choice. The only way it could get any better for Ratzinger would be if the ACLU issued a press release denouncing him." By dint of being the most outspoken religiously-conflicted blogger, Sullivan has attracted much attention in the past 24 hours, much of it critical. In just one instance, Professor Bainbridge's observation that "Andrew Sullivan is an ass" has made the rounds. As a self-professed conservative who supported John Kerry in '04, Sullivan burned many bridges with many right-leaning bloggers who first started reading blogs through him. Many call him a "liberal" outright. Sullivan rarely comes in for this much abuse, but he has become a regular target in the past year or so.

BLOGS VS. THE MSM: I Like It, Sam I Am

Bringing a smile to every anti-MSM blogger on both the right and left, Broadcasting & Cable reports that ABC's Sam Donaldson was asked about the future of network news at an NAB discussion. He said: "I think it's dead. Sorry ... The monster anchors are through." Libertarian Ed Driscoll agrees: "Gotta give Sam Donaldson credit for seeing the obvious and not sticking his head in the sand." Tex The Pontificator is more cautious, writing "Yes, things will be different, but I would not go out on a limb to say network news is dead."

File under: Will the blogosphere replace the MSM? -- Anonymous prof "Rusty Shackelford" of MyPetJawa interviews Susan Hallums, the ex-wife of U.S. abductee Roy Hallums. Part 1 was posted 4/19, and part 2 should go up later today.

IN THE STATES: These Things Come In Threes

Liberal Carpetbagger Report picks up on "a new report from Fox News (yes, Fox News) explains that the White House may have had a far more direct role" in the removal of the "Denver Three" -- 3 liberal COans who were removed from a Bush "town hall" there -- "than had previously been known." Colorado Pols adds: "Any admission would certainly help Congressman Bob Beauprez, whose office, along with Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave's office, distributed the tickets to the event." Left-wing DailyKos picked up on the story on 4/19; that post has since picked up 150+ comments.

Right-leaning JustOneMinute, on Kerry and Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) co-sponsoring the Workplace Religious Freedom Act: "The Dour One continues his re-branding for 2008. ... And Santorum? Presumably he is moving himself a bit towards the center in anticipation of a tough Senate race." Liberal MyDD, on the possible "emerging Santorum Florida Scandal: "It may be completely legal for Santorum to fly to Florida, meet the Schiavo family and (before it was cancelled) talk about how much he is committed to privatizing Social Security all while raising a boat load of cash on his Senate travel account. It just doesn't seem like a smart move for the most endangered Republican in the US Senate."

DLC's Marshall Wittmann, on the NY mayor race: "All of the political community there was abuzz about the possibility that former Senator Bob Kerrey is considering a run for Mayor. One problem that faces a Kerrey candidacy is that he might have previously committed to lead Democrats for [Mayor Mike] Bloomberg." He adds: "Why not set his sights higher? Not that the number one job in the Big Apple is small potatoes, but isn't there a higher calling (excluding the Pope, of course). 2008 is wide open and Democrats should think outside the box."

Right-leaning MN blog The First Ring hosts an interview with SEN '06 longshot Harold Shudlick (R).

MISCELLANY: The Second Internet Bubble?

This Modern World: "By the way... is it just this site, or are the blogads drying up all over? I've slashed prices considerably and still, nothing... sure, I could go down to ten or twenty bucks an ad, but at that rate, it's just not worth cluttering up the site. ... Has blog advertising gone to the third world and/or Republican model -- most of the money aggregated at the very top with a pittance left over for the rest?" Christian Crumlish of Personal Democracy Forum responds: "Back when I started blogging here one of the first things I wrote about was the potential for the political blogad market to dry up in the lull after November, 2004. Is that what's happening now?"

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Moral Judgments

Oakland Mayor Jerry Brown reports on DNC Chair Howard Dean's back-to-morality speech at the CA Dem convo: "There is something strange, though, in this rush to 'morals.' Morals represent tradition and custom. In this brave new century, tradition and custom are replaced by fashion and hype. The past is for reactionaries, we are told. Science, technology and the ever-expanding GDP will solve our problems. Yet, no society can hang together without a proper balance between stability, respect for the old ways and openness to the new. In our time -- 2005 -- we are way out of balance. Question: who gets it?"

LEST WE FORGET: Sickened, Disgusted, Appalled, Dismayed, Chagrined

WuzzaDem's DHS-inspired "Andrew Sullivan Emotional Alert Level."

Posted by at 12:42 PM

April 19, 2005

4/19: This Story's Got (Incredibly Weirdly Skinny) Legs

2 political pundits are drawing comments from other bloggers like Dirty Harry draws his sidearm: quickly, (and in the past 24 hours) frequently. The first everyone has heard of: conservative author Ann Coulter, who graced the cover of Time this weekend. Coulter has complained publicly about her cover photo, and some conservatives have rushed to her defense. Meanwhile, liberals think she got off too light. Both sides are greatly amused that Time fell for a fake anti-Coulter sign at a fake anti-Pres. Bush rally.

The second person is considerably more obscure: liberal Univ. of WI prof/Informed Comment blogger Juan Cole. The New Republic has a lengthy criticism of Cole in their new issue, and having been posted just on 4/19, it's already attracting plenty of attention, at least from the right. They argue, as does the commentary, that Cole is too hostile to the U.S. to be taken seriously, and sometimes veers toward anti-Semitism.

Overlooked in the blogosphere: Tom DeLay, John Bolton, and filibusters, which are all mentioned today, but none seem to be attracting much discussion. The primary reason for this? No major MSM stories to swarm around.

TRACKBACKS: Taking It To The Air

Where the blog swarm is headed, who's taking part, and what they're saying:

• City Journal editor Brian Anderson writes in the Los Angeles Times: "The liberal Air America Radio, just past its first birthday, has probably enjoyed more free publicity than any enterprise in recent history. But don't believe the hype: Air America's left-wing answer to conservative talk radio is failing ... WLIB, its flagship in New York City, has sunk to 24th in the metro area Arbitron ratings -- worse than the all-Caribbean format it replaced." (Note: Anderson cites Radio Blogger, producer of Hugh Hewitt's radio show). Linking: Right Wing News; The Moderate Voice; LaShawn Barber's Corner; The Unpopulist; Viking Pundit.

  >> Ace of Spades HQ: "Right radio is an alternative to the MSM. What the f' is liberal radio an 'alternative' to? Reality?" A commenter at the Brothers Judd writes: "The fact that Clear Channel Communications has a lot of urban, but low-wattage AM stations right now in search of some sort of viable format seems to be Air America's biggest asset, since George W. Bush pal Lowery Mays is willing to give liberal talk a go on those stations, whose ratings were abysmal to begin with."

  >> Liberal AirAmericaLinksBlog responds: "The backlash continues. Another article by a conservative whose approach to fighting back against Air America is to continue spewing the myth that liberal talk radio will always fail."

BOLTON: Today's The Day ... But Where Is Everybody?

Washington Note's Steve Clemons, who has led the charge against Bolton for the left, writes this a.m.: "Today may be the day of the John Bolton Showdown. Democrats have sought a delay in the vote as Senators Joseph Biden and Chris Dodd want more time to interview Bolton victims, to read NSA intercepts, and to more fully understand John Bolton's 'sink [ex-Sec/State Colin] Powell's foreign policy' activities on Iran, Cuba, and North Korea. Apparently, Senator [Dick] Lugar has denied their request and is calling a 'business meeting' of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee at 2:15 p.m. The Bolton vote would take place during this meeting, unless something intervenes."

FILIBUSTERS: Full Nelson

The Nation's Daily Outrage, on Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE): "Essentially, Nelson is doing [Senate Maj. Leader Bill] Frist's controversial bidding for him, at a time when conservative opposition to Frist's plan is rising ... However, the support of one or two more centrist Democrats could resuscitate Frist's plan at the very moment it is dying. Nelson argues that his party's well-organized resistance to the nuclear option puts red state Democrats in a tough spot. But there's a different between trying to reach consensus and giving the GOP whatever it wants."

Meanwhile, Blogs for Bush picks up on a different part of the above post and comments: "I can't help but observing how fun it is to read left-wing opinion: we're going to "outlaw" the filibuster of judicial nominees... makes it sound ominous, doesn't it? Of course, the filibuster isn't a law... its a mere Senate rule."

COULTER: If Time Wanted To Cause A Stir, Then Mission Accomplished

According to Matt Drudge, conservative "controversialist" Coulter "blasted" her Time cover photo: "Why can't they just photograph conservatives straight?!" The photographer, whom Drudge notes also took Bill Clinton's "infamous 'Lewinsky' power pose," seems to have used a fisheye lens, with the effect of "stretching Coulter's legs and feet -- while shrinking the rest of her body." Libertarian Ed Driscoll: "Matt Drudge and Ann Coulter's attempt to create some sort of controversy over the choice of lens used by Time's photographer to shoot Ann for the Time cover this week seems awfully silly to me ... I'm all for pointing out errors and lies and bias coming from the mainstream media, but this seems like trying to hype a pretty minor issue."

BuzzMachine's Jeff Jarvis comments: "I find a different conspiracy: Making her the symbol of the right would be like, oh, making Michael Moore the symbol of the left, eh?"

Conservative Michelle Malkin notes, "filtering prominent conservatives through a distorted lens seems to be a bad habit at Time magazine, which airbrushed cigar smoke onto the cover photo of Rush Limbaugh in January 1995." Malkin and Charles Johnson alsonote that Time has neither removed nor corrected supposed anti-Coulter protest signs, which were actually the creation of pro-GOP parody groups Communists for Kerry and Protest Warrior. Eschaton links to a Philadelphia Daily News blog which notices the same. It appears the first site to notice and make hay out of the error were commenters in a 4/17 thread at Free Republic.

From the Time article: "Coulter has a reputation for carelessness with facts, and if you Google the words 'Ann Coulter lies,' you will drown in results. But I didn't find many outright Coulter errors." Liberal think tanker Nicco Mele responds: "What a joke. Below are just a few of Ann's most recent outright errors, distortions, and lies." More than a dozen links follow, most to liberal org. Media Matters, but a handful to the defunct centrist fact-checking blog Spinsanity.

Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum dubs the frenzy "Coulter-Mania."

COLE: If You Don't Read Blogs, You Probably Have No Idea Who This Is

National Review's The Corner points out an article in the 4/25 The New Republic by Univ. of London prof Ephraim Karsh, criticizing Univ. of MI prof/blogger Juan Cole. Karsh writes: "The appeal of Cole's blog is easy to see. It is highly readable, stripped of the jargon common to other Middle East academic researchers. And Cole provides a wealth of information on the Sisyphean U.S. effort to reconstruct Iraq. ... But, unfortunately, Cole suffers from many other common Arabist misconceptions that deeply prejudice and compromise his writing. Having done hardly any independent research on the twentieth-century Middle East, Cole's analysis of this era is essentially derivative ... Worse, Cole's discussion of U.S. foreign policy frequently veers toward conspiratorial anti-Semitism." The piece went live on TNR.com this a.m.; no comment from Cole yet, though he has recently described it as a "half-neocon" publication.

A guest-blogger for liberal hawk Michael Totten: "Although Cole claims to provide informed comment on the Middle East, it's obvious that he does not express the views of the Jews who live there. He also does not express the views of pro-Independence Lebanese, Iraqis, Kurds, Jews, Arab Christians, liberal Arabs or moderate Muslims. Cole, the Arabist, expresses the views of Arab nationalists and their Islamist allies."

Right-leaning Glenn Reynolds, on Cole: "I have no doubt that he's sincere, but I've found his analysis, when I've looked at it, to be too distorted by Bush-hatred to be reliable."

Conservative Power Line says the article casts a wider net: "Karsh's critique of Cole exposes the heart of much of what passes for criticism of the alleged 'neo-con' influence on Bush administration foreign policy."

WHITE HOUSE '08: Just In Case Anyone Thinks Clark Isn't Running ...

Last weekend, UCLA prof Mark A.R. Kleiman attended a Wesley Clark fundraiser, and wrote: "The speech was, I thought, terrific (in stark contrast to the boring emails that have been going out under Clark's name and the so-so website). The message was straightforward: the Democrats are better able to keep the country secure than the Bushites, but they need to "get over Vietnam" and convince the voters of that fact. ... And they need to stop letting the GOP define "faith" and "patriotism" as partisan issues. ... This site rarely offers gambling advice, but the contract on Clark's being the Democratic nominee is trading at 1.7 asked on Tradesports. At effective odds of 60:1, that sounds to me like a good bet."

National Review's David Frum writes about talking with Clark -- "who is by the way running in 2008" -- during the taping of "Real Time with Bill Maher" over the weekend: "It was in one sense a very troubling encounter. When we spoke about anything military, he was shrewd, incisive, penetrating, and eloquent. It's no wonder he was promoted to Supreme Allied Commander. Then the subject shifted to politics. I've written enough talking points in my time that I cannot fairly complain when somebody else repeats those written for him. But I do wonder: What is it about today's Democratic party that foists such leaden talking points upon those who aspire to lead it? Wesley Clark feels he has to defend the absurdities of the Democratic gun obsession even as he safely maintains ownership of 20 firearms himself."

Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum: "I expect the 2008 race to be very crowded. For a variety of reasons, 2008 is likely to be a landslide win for whoever the Democratic candidate turns out to be, and I think lots of Dems know it. That's why John Kerry is still sounding like a candidate: he doesn't want to be the unlucky Al Smith watching from the wings while someone else cruises to the presidency because they had the good luck to pick the right year to run."

Ex-Sen. John Edwards' One America Blog blog is updating once every couple days or more, and seems to be getting read. A 4/15 post by Edwards himself has so far picked up 157 comments. And on 4/18 it was announced a 2nd podcast is "right around the corner!" Meanwhile, U.S. News' Roger Simon thinks Edwards' blog leaves out a lot, as he writes in a piece accessible at his online column archive.

DEMOCRATS: About Social Security, At Least Tangentially

Liberal Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo: "The problem Democrats have is not bad tactics or bad strategies or poor framing. The problem is an over-reliance, even an addiction, to tactics and strategies. What the last year has taught me -- both in good ways and bad -- is that this malady isn't limited to the national security domain but applies to Democrats pretty much across the board. ... We hear a lot today about framing or being tougher or being united or dumping the failed consultants. But while each of these prescriptions has some element of merit, each also recapitulates the existing problem -- only dressing it up in clothes -- because each mistakes the disease for the cure."

IN THE STATES: Why's Everybody Always Picking On Street?

MyDD's Chris Bowers, on Philly Mayor John Street getting tagged as one of the "worst mayors" in the U.S. by Time: "I don't want to get too nailed to my own cross here, but I suspect the real reason that Street got dumped on for the same things that [Chicago Mayor Richard] Daley got a pass is related to general national feelings about Philadelphia versus other major urban centers. Things that are considered either kitsch or part of the local color in other cities, such as corruption in Chicago politics, are viewed as real flaws in Philadelphia. After all, despite its size, Philly is just that city between New York and Washington, and thus lacks the regional affection that can give other cities a lot more slack."

Ex-IA GOP chair Brian Kennedy has launched a blog covering the IA 01 race (no permalinks; scroll to April 18): "The Democrat Party's attack dogs are back at it. In the past week in Iowa's First Congressional District I have heard a radio advertisements sponsored by MoveOn.org trashing Jim Nussle for supporting the new bankruptcy law and have seen a TV ad from another liberal special-interest front group spreading innuendo against House Republican Leader Tom DeLay. It seems like just yesterday that we reelected President Bush and got a reprieve from the multimillion dollar slash-and-burn negative campaign these groups waged here in Eastern Iowa last year. Now, a full 20 months until the next Election Day, the liberals have started the negative advertising campaign all over again."

Liberal DailyKos, on the fallout from Rep. Henry Hyde's (R-IL) retirement: "On the Democratic side we have Christy Cegelis, who gave Hyde a serious scare in 2004 despite being grossly underfunded. Democrats are already grumbling about her fundraising this past quarter -- a sign that the party may try and muscle in a different candidate?"

MISCELLANY: The Next Cause Of The Social Cons?

Slate's Mickey Kaus notes: "The FCC is coming under pressure to regulate cable TV for decency. President Bush at least temporarily seemed to endorse the idea and the new chairman of the FCC seems to be heading in that direction," and in June "Viacom plans to launch Logo, a gay-oriented basic cable channel." He speculates: "Don't they yield a third likely fact: ... We're in for a huge culture-war battle this summer over whether to regulate Logo (and other gay networks), with cultural conservatives making it a Schiavo-like cause."

Libertarian Megan McArdle, aka "Jane Galt": "Why aren't we doing anything about the budget deficit? Because no one cares that much. Oh, liberals say they care, just like conservatives cared when they were out of power. But what most liberals care about is rolling back the Bush tax cuts, not cutting the budget deficit." Writing that whomever has the power always has "bigger priorities," she adds, "it seems to me that the only way we'll see our budget balanced is if we have the same combination of things that hit us in the nineties: a huge capital gains surge that surprises the hell out of our politicians, and a political system too gridlocked to spend the booty. In other words, I'm not holding my breath."

Conservative activist Mike Krempasky, co-founder of RedState (which is incorporated as a 527), writes in a post-fundraising post: "We've raised about two months worth of hosting fees in the last couple days. Thank you to those who've contributed! At the same time, I know I speak for the board of RedState when I say that we're really committed to getting a year's worth of bandwidth fees in the bank before we start investing in improvements to the site, as well as a whole list of offline political activities."

A post from 4/17 still getting attention is by libertarian Cathy Young at Hit and Run: "What's with all the posthumous adulation of loony feminist extraordinaire Andrea Dworkin?" She cites "glowing" eulogies in the New York Times, Boston Globe and even from the "usually reasonable" law prof/blogger Ann Althouse. Young asks, "if a male writer had written book after book arguing that women were evil creatures whose sole purpose in life is to sexually manipulate and destroy men, would we spend a lot of time quibbling over whether he actually used the phrase, 'All women are whores'?"

Liberal TalkLeft, on reports that alleged 20th-hijacker Zacarias Moussaoui will plead guilty: "My prediction: Even if found competent, Moussaoui will never get through a change of plea hearing. He will never admit to the essential elements of the offenses, or a sufficient factual basis. This will be just a rerun of 2002. Maybe Sy Hersh was right, Moussaoui should have been a witness instead of a defendant."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Video Killed The, Er, Text Star?

Despite criticism from some bloggers, including conservative Patrick Ruffini and liberal The American Street, there's no question plenty of blogs on both sides of the aisle are flattered by the attention from the inside-the-blogs segment on CNN's "Inside Politics." Thanks to video capture and video-blogging technology, many are even posting video of their mentions on the show. Liberal Oliver Willis did so yesterday. Some bloggers have built a reputation on providing video segments (of "IP" and other shows) online, including conservative Trey Jackson; DemBloggers also posts clips from "The Daily Show."

LEST WE FORGET: What's My Name?

A couple weeks ago, San Francisco Chronicle columnist Jon Carroll wrote a satirical column about the "Unitarian Jihad." Not a few days later, the Unitarian Jihad Name Generator was launched by CA-based tech geek Bill Humphries (aka "Brother Rail Gun of Desirable Mindfulness"). If you have trouble with the generator, there is also the First Reformed Unitarian Jihad Name Generator. For the record, the Blogometer's name is "Brother Howitzer of Love and Mercy."

Posted by at 12:45 PM

April 18, 2005

4/18: Exile On Mainstream

Something the Blogometer hasn't made mention of -- but which you might have noticed by reading through this -- is that a number of popular bloggers are law professors. (Perhaps the best-known is Univ. of TN's Glenn Reynolds, whose Instapundit is one of the longest-running and widest-read of all blogs.) Others are mentioned below, as one big story from the weekend concerns a New York Times Magazine cover story by GWU law prof Jeffrey Rosen.

Meanwhile, the nomination of John Bolton to be the U.N. Amb. remains much-discussed; this a.m. the Washington Post reports on new allegations against him, and the liberal are blogs flocking to comment and -- they hope -- assist in derailing his chances of getting a vote before the full Senate.

Also simmering: Another installment of the lefty bloggers vs. the righty bloggers over which side has been co-opted by the political and media establishment, and more developments in the post-Terri Schiavo debate.

TRACKBACKS: Loco-Bolton Or Loco Bolton?

Where the blog swarm is headed, who's taking part, and what they're saying:

• Washington Post reports that Bolton kept certain info from ex-Sec/State Colin Powell, including one instance regarding U.S. and European negotiation with Iran, and once did the same re: Sec/State Condoleezza Rice. It's mostly liberal blogs linking: TBogg; Obsidian Wings; Basie!; Stygius; Pandagon.

  >> Liberal War and Piece calls it "truly disturbing behavior that harkens back to Iran Contra in so many ways."

  
  >> Conservative Beltway Buzz: "In exchange for postponing his hearings until after the Pope's funeral, the Democrats promised committee chair Richard Lugar a vote last week. It has since been delayed until tomorrow at the earliest," and are "using the broken promise in a vain attempt to dig up 'dirt' on Bolton's previous record. The Washington Post provides an assist."
• Columnist Mark Steyn, a favorite of righty bloggers, defends Bolton in his Chicago Sun-Times column, particularly for placing so much emphasis on Bolton's hands-on-hips confrontational style (see 4/14 Blogometer). Steyn says he was just doing the "Loco-Bolton," or the "Neoconga No. 5," and rewrites lyrics accordingly. Mostly conservatives link: Roger L. Simon; Little Green Footballs; Power Line; Blogs for Bush; Notes of a Nervous Harpist.

  >> Salon's Secular Blasphemy: "I have to say I have no firm opinion on the candidacy of John Bolton, except that my sentiment towards the UN says that the worse the Dems make Bolton look, the more I think the UN deserves him. Mark Steyn, unsurprisingly, has pretty firm opinions. His satirical take on the Dems' reaction to Bolton's hands-on-hips bullying is a pleasure to read."

• One story attracting plenty of attention from both sides is the he death of anti-war activist/U.S. humanitarian worker Marla Ruzicka in a Baghdad-area car bomb. There are multiple versions: CNN.com, Washington Post, the AP Linking to at least one of the above: Little Green Footballs; Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler; The Mind Boggles;

  >> Moderate Joe Gandelman: "Nick Berg, who was dreadfully and sadistically decapitated by terrorists ... was another one who was trying to help Iraqis out. They could care less as they sawed his head off and he screeched in agony and unimaginable horror. The car bomb didn't care about Ruzicka's intentions or political evolution, either."

  >> Liberal Josh Marshall, who met her during her time in D.C.: "I was always fuzzy about just what it was she did over in Iraq ... I will leave it at sharing that memory. And may she rest in peace."

  >> Conservative Ranting Profs: "What, precisely, she did of a practical nature in either Afghanistan or Iraq is left somewhat vague, besides caring an enormous amount, and organizing. Were food, or medical supplies, or school supplies, ever actually found, dispersed, distributed? If so, it isn't mentioned."

  >> Others, including Instapundit and the USS Neverdock note that the article contains an update to another story: that a CBS stringer arrested on suspicion of collaboration with insurgents has "tested positive for explosive residue." USS Neverdock: "The investigation isn't over yet but surely this merits more prominence than at the end of a story about the death of an anti-war activist."

JUDGES I: They Fought The Law

GWU law prof Rosen writes in a very long New York Times Magazine on the courts, regulation, and the "Constitution in Exile" movement, which aims to return to a stricter, pre-New Deal Constitutional interpretation. Many law profs, some with personal connections to Rosen, jump into the fray:

At the right-leaning Volkh Conspiracy, libertarian GMU prof David Bernstein writes that the term is an invention of liberal law profs, and that from '95 to '01, "I, as someone who knows probably just about every libertarian and most Federalist Society law professors in the United States (there aren't that many of us), and who teaches on the most libertarian law faculty in the nation, never heard the phrase."

Liberal atty Jeralyn Meritt finds some agreement with the conservatives. She quotes from Rosen: "Does the Federal Government have the right to ban medical marijuana use and acts associated with the growing of marijuana for medical purposes under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution?" Merritt responds: "I'm hoping the answer will be 'no.' But so are the Exilists, who are the subject of Rosen's article. That's one reason it is important to distinguish between 'activist judges' and 'extremist judges.'"

Centrist law prof Ann Althouse: "I recommend reading the article if you're not familiar with recent Supreme Court case law. If you are familiar with the cases, you might want to skim and then read the last page, which is oddly inconclusive."

Centrist non-prof Andrew Sullivan notices that the piece story includes the line: "Cass Sunstein, who describes himself as a moderate ..." Sullivan disputes that, describing Sunstein a "big liberal (which is his right), an anyone-but-Bush partisan" Dem, and adds: "I wonder if the NYT will expand this practice: 'George W. Bush, who describes himself as a fiscal conservative. Joseph Ratzinger, who describes himself as a centrist. Michael Moore, who calls himself objective...'" Cato's Tom Palmer, who calls the Rosen piece an "attempt at a balanced treatment," adds: "The photographer managed to work extra hard to get Satanic or cadaverous photos of the people on the 'wrong side' of the issue."

More response from Villainous Company, Ace of Spades HQ, JustOneMinute and Behind Closed Doors in Washington, which writes: "The article is a predictable re-hashing of the usual Cass Sunstein-esque stuff: the U.S. was a dystopian, Lochner-esque hellscape until FDR and the Supreme Court expanded the role and scope of the federal government.... I'll be goddamned if I don't hate it when left-leaning law professors frame the issue in terms of a single choice between the 70 year-old New Deal in one corner and the John Birch Society in the other."

JUDGES II: Card Game

Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) has an op-ed on the filibusters of Bush's jud. nominees in the 4/17 Washington Post, where he writes: "This July will mark almost two years since the president nominated Justice Janice Rogers Brown to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Brown started life as the daughter of a sharecropper in the segregated South and through hard work and determination became the first African American woman to serve on California's highest court." Liberal Gadflyer responds: "So tell me, why is it that when Republicans nominate a white person for a judicial or adminstrative post, we're told that person should be confirmed because he/she is qualified and capable, but if they nominate a black or hispanic we're told he/she should be confirmed because of the inspiring tale of obstacles and prejudice he/she has overcome?"

New England Republican writes, "if liberal Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) votes for the rules change, [John] McCain is really going to pegged as a leftist RINO by the right. And rightfully so."

BOLTON: Can He Be Stopped?

Steve Clemons, this a.m.: "Today is the most important day for anyone who is engaged in the effort to send someone better than John Bolton to be America's Ambassador to the United Nations. I will be posting a lot today." He provides phone numbers for the offices of GOP Sens. Lincoln Chafee and Chuck Hagel. He provides a link to other sens' info, writing, "frankly all of them could use calls. But if you have to focus, Feingold remains important -- and all of the Republicans are important and in my view, potential 'gets' with the exception of Norm Coleman and George Allen."

Clemons also calls on the cmte to "read the NSA intercepts" Bolton requested to gauge "what was being said by some of our interlocutors abroad about their conversations and interactions with U.S. officials."

CONYERS: Er, What Else Is LaRouche Known For?

Politics1 (scroll to "LaRouche Redux 2") follows up on its report that Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) had spoken at events sponsored by conspiracy monger/perennial WH candidate/ex-con/ Lyndon LaRouche, publishing a statement from Conyers' office. Key excerpt: "After finding your post, we went to your suggested links and pulled up the LaRouche quotes that were, to say the least, antisemitic and racist. We brought them to Mr. Conyers attention. He was shocked and surprised. On his behalf: he unequivocally condemns these statements, and he will not speak before any group he knows to be associated with LaRouche unless they renounce these views."

BLOGS VS. THE MSM: One Columnist Dares To Engage The Blogs

Last week, St. Louis Post-Dispatch columnist Sylvester Brown wrote a column wherein he wrote: "I don't recall any prewar speeches about delivering democracy to the Middle East." On 4/14, Instapundit points to a passage from Bush's '03 SOTU where Bush talks about "liberty" for Iraqis and Iranians. Readers sent in more examples, which he appended in multiple updates to the same post. On 4/17, Brown responded in his column: "I'll admit those lines from the president's speech didn't stay with me. Even if they had, I wouldn't exactly define them as part of a pre-war, bringing-democracy-to-the-Middle East sort of speech. ... The bloggers were partly correct. Bush has mentioned that a Saddam-free world and a democratic Iraq would have a ripple effect in the Middle East. But let's be honest, he mentioned those as the perks of war, not the reasons for war."

Reuters reports that the Boston Globe has stopped using freelancer Barbara Stewart because she "fabricated large chunks of a story" about a Nova Scotia seal hunt." Conservative Will Collier asks about the Globe's fact-checkers: "Are they still on the payroll? And why weren't their names publicized along with that of the fired freelance reporter?"

Brady Westwater aks why the Los Angeles Times hasn't covered the news that HarperCollins publisher Judith Regan is moving her HQs from NYC to L.A. Westwater: "So once again, if you want to know what is happening in Los Angeles, the only paper to read... is the New York Times, our true hometown newspaper."

Times of London interviews Matt Drudge, in which he says of blogs: "I don't read them. I like to create waves and not surf them. And who are these influential bloggers? You can't name one because they don't exist." Patrick Ruffini: "Why is he saying this? The reason is actually quite simple. Competition. Blogs are a threat to Drudge's leadership of Internet media. ... They're the Firefox to Drudge's Microsoft."

COULTER: Right Place At The Right Time

Liberal Bill Nosthine: "Time magazine has placed Ann Coulter on this week's cover as "one of the world's most influential people. Coulter is influential, yes, but only in the way that Typhoid Mary was: She poisons everything she touches. As for Time, whatever is left of its claim to good judgment is, of course, gone."

Conservative Ace of Spades HQ: "I hate to be a one-note Charlie, but this is, yes, proof of media bias. The woman should have had a big cover story on Time -- and all the rest of the glossies -- years ago. Not simply because, love her or hate her or love her while wishing she'd eschew her more gratuitously-provocative remarks, but because she will sell magazines."

LEFT VS. RIGHT: Relax, You're Both On The Take

"Digby" of Hullaballoo, writes elsewhere: "Independent bloggers on the right hail from all walks of life, but the leading voices are either part of the political machine itself, like Mike Krempasky of RedState, or closely connected to the conservative media and think tank infrastructure, like Hugh Hewitt, Michelle Malkin and the PowerLine bloggers. The right blogosphere is a reflection of successful top-down Republican message control, and as such these bloggers are welcomed warmly into the fold. ... By contrast, the left blogosphere is populated by 'citizen bloggers,' who work in non-political occupations for a living and blog for reasons of personal interest."

Little Green Footballs' Charles Johnson (an L.A.-based web designer) reponds: "This is the worst kind of disingenuous garbage, a complete inversion of reality. Markos Zuniga of Daily Kos is a paid political consultant for Howard Dean and other campaigns. Joshua Micah Marshall, Kevin Drum, and Matt Yglesias all get paychecks from liberal publications. Duncan Black (Atrios) works for George Soros."

At RedState, Krempasky writes: "Well, it only took a few weeks for the lightning fast Digby to rewrite Garance Franke-Ruta's American Prospect article on the great big scary Republican message machine that is the blogosphere," and takes issue with "Digby's" assertions about the right-blogosphere's take on the FEC and conservative activist Morton Blackwell. And back at Hullaballoo, "Digby" responds to Krempasky.

SCHIAVO REDUX: Is This Debate Here To Stay?

Tom Maguire of JustOneMinute follows up on a story that surfaced in the blogosphere last week (see 4/11 Blogometer), the plight of 81-year-old GA woman at the center of a Schiavo-like family disagreement. The reporting has been mostly driven by the unreliable online-only conservative WorldNetDaily. Meanwhile, Blogs for Terri posts a clarification of the original report written by the anti-tube family member, ex-GA Dem legis. aide Ken Mullinax.

Liberal Mark A.R. Kleiman: "If the facts are as stated by the nephew who wants Ms. [Mae] Magouirk moved, the granddaughter decided to discontinue life support after praying over the matter and deciding that Jesus wanted her grandmother to "come home." That doesn't deter some of Jane's commenters from warning that the "militant atheists" want to kill all disabled people. Get a grip, folks!"

And Salon's liberal World O' Crap writes: "Just when the wackos of the religious right got their "Save Terri" machine up and running, Terri died. Bummer. But now they've found the next best thing" -- and gives a lengthy version hostile to the conservative blogs that have kept the story moving.

Maguire, on why the "partisan outrage": "My two cents -- some folks on one side really do think that a portion of the other side has no respect for law or life; some folks on the other side think that some/all of the Religious Right really will intrude into every family decision. Did the involvement of a (former) Dem Congressional staffer confound those calculations? Beats me."

From National Review's The Corner: "I heard this morning that Dean made a speech over the weekend in which he said he plans to make Schiavo a big campaign issue in the next two cycles. If he's serious, THAT's a bonehead move. The seemingly pro-death polls on Schiavo were dependent on two things (a) misinformation spawned by the media about basic facts of the case, and (b) the high emotion of the days prior to Terri's death. A campaign that scrutinizes what happened in Florida is most likely to correct the misinformation -- and may even swing things in the other direction."

MISCELLANY: Health Care Gets More Ink, Er, Pixels Than Social Security These Days

Highlighting a Health Affairs paper (PDF), Washington Monthly's Political Animal notes that U.S. citizens "fairly or very satisfied" with their health coverage number 45% of the "poor"; 61% of the "elderly"; and 34% of "everyone else," and adds: "It's hard to know what to say about this. Americans in general are highly dissatisfied with their healthcare system -- the one that's supposedly the "best healthcare in the world" -- and yet they've been conned into thinking that a national healthcare system would be even worse. This is despite the fact that people in America who are enrolled in a national healthcare system ... like it better than the working stiffs who have private coverage. .. In addition, as we all know, national healthcare systems cover everyone, produce better outcomes on average, and are generally cheaper than the weird pseudo-free-market system we insist on clinging to here. So when does everyone wake up?"

Liberal OurCongress notes that separate polls conducted at roughly the same time show differing generic cong. ballot outcomes -- Dems fare better, but only slightly in one poll, adding, "I wonder why the Dems didn't perform as well in this poll as in the other one, and why they've slipped in a month when the GOP hasn't exactly been doing well."

NM blogger Joe Monahan writes a FAQ of sorts, answering readers' questions about his perspective covering politics as a "reporter/blogger."

IN THE STATES: Californication

Recalling the late OR Gov. Tom McCall and the "Don't Californicate Oregon" slogan, an envious BlueOregon writes: "Boy, are those days ever over. Today, California wants to be the state of livability. And like Oregon in the 1970s, probably foremost among the reasons for California's leadership is their maverick Republican Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger. Whatever you think of the Terminator's politics, you have got to admit that Schwarzenegger is a smart, gutsy and interesting politician. He's a guy who bucks his ever more conservative Republican party with his moderate positions on a regular basis. And while Schwarzenegger definitely has some crackpot ideas about budgets, borrowing and public employees, he's helped California shine in the national spotlight since his election."

Right-leaning blogHouston: "The Chronicle has spilled quite a bit of ink on its news and editorial pages agitating in favor of House Bill 1348, which is broadly characterized as campaign finance legislation. Interestingly, the bill would also curtail political speech. ... If such issue-oriented political advertising is that bad, then it should be banned outright, not in the final 60 days of a campaign. ... A far preferable approach would be simply to enhance disclosure laws, not ban political advertising/speech."

Liberal Evergreen Politics: "We appear to have picked up our first troll here at Evergreen Politics, who writes under the handle 'AnalogKid.' ... Now, I got a little curious who might be interested in trolling us, and so I looked up his IP address and found that it traced back to Waste Management, Inc," which owns a "highly polluting waste incinerator" in Spokane, and is "one of the country's leading environmental criminals." More: "Now, why on earth would Waste Management be paying an employee to troll on a progressive politics websites? Or, is AnalogKid just a goldbricker who's blogging at work on company time? Either way, a troll's a troll. And either way, it's pathetic. And I'm not going to indulge it."

Conservative Kennedy V. The Machine notes that General Mills heir James Bell (D) is in the SEN '06 race: "Bell's worth is not publicly listed, but I think it's safe to assume the grandson of the founder of General Mills isn't struggling to get by. That ka-ching sound you heard was the price of the DFL race for Senate going up."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Limits Of Washington Fandom?

TNR's Noam Scheiber, having attended the Nats' home opener, notes that most coverage "lauded" the D.C. fans' enthusiasm. But Scheiber disagrees: "From where I was sitting, though, the Washington fans looked pretty suspect. Livan Hernandez, the Nationals ace, had an absolutely heroic outing. He managed to take a one-hitter into the 9th inning ... Unfortunately, as one of my friends pointed out, probably half of RFK stadium had cleared out by the end of the seventh inning. No one seemed to care about the kind of game Hernandez was having. Apparently being fresh and tanned for that 9 o'clock meeting with the assistant deputy under-secretary of agriculture was more important than watching history being made."

LEST WE FORGET: Popish Plots

"Giblets" at the liberal Fafblog seems to think he/she/it has become Pope, or rather, the "first and only Gibpope." Giblets plans accordingly. Meanwhile, conservative IMAO makes a series of predictions for the new pope's 1st 100 days: "Catholic Bishops will be replaced by more valuable Catholic Rooks."

Posted by at 12:47 PM

April 15, 2005

4/15: F.R.I.S.T.

Today there's consensus: This a.m. everyone is talking about a round of news stories that suggest Senate Maj. Leader Bill Frist will likely seek to end the Senate filibuster rule. Other topics of debate include -- of course -- House Maj. Leader Tom DeLay and U.N. Amb.-designate John Bolton. Also: the inevitable speculation about who gets Poped next. And: A new baseball-themed musical?

TRACKBACKS:

Where the blog swarm is headed, who's taking part, and what they're saying:

• The New York Times on Frist and the filibuster mentions that he will participate ina a "telecast" for the FRC, along with Christian activists James Dobson and Chuck Colson. Also getting play are similar stories in the Washington Post and The Hill. Linking to one or more: TalkLeft; No More Mr. Nice Blog; Daily Kos; BuzzMachine; Hugh Hewitt; PoliPundit; Corrente; Betsy Newmark; Shot in the Dark.

  >> Liberal Josh Marshall: "Frist wants to cast this, literally, as a war between the believers and the unbelievers. I guess this is part of toning down the rhetoric. (How much do we have to endure so that this guy can run for president?) ... I don't know which is more amusing -- the wingnut jihad against a federal judiciary that is already predominantly Republican or the fact that the intellectual and often literal descendants of the upholders of Jim Crow now seek to enlist the dark legacy of segregation as some sort of arrow in their rhetorical quiver. Actually, perhaps it's even more amusing that the same folks spent the 1990s using the same methods to thwart numerous Clinton judicial appointments."

  >> Conservative James Joyner: "I support Frist's efforts to get judicial nominees an up-or-down vote and even support invoking the so-called "nuclear option" to get it done. However, this particular move is not only unseemly but likely to backfire. Frist's appeal is that he appears above politics. This sort of slimy tactic will not serve him in the long term, especially as he seeks the White House in 2008." Righty Ed Morrissey writes that "contrary to [the Post's] headline," Frist "plans on dawdling for weeks longer before finally addressing the issue of Democratic obstructionism ... To hell with Frist, to hell with [GOP Sen. John] Thune, and to hell with the GOP if they wait until the session is half-over before finding their spine or other significant parts of their anatomy."

• But also getting coverage is a New York Times report on the indictment of a TX businessman involved in the U.N.'s Oil for Food scandal -- long a topic of discussion among right-leaning bloggers. But the TX connection brings a few left-leaners to the table. Linkers: JustOneMinute; Instapundit; Austin Bay; TalkLeft; Ranting Profs; Counterterrorism Blog.

  >> Centrist U.N.-skeptic Roger L. Simon: "ask yourself whether it isn't time for a strong reformer like John Bolton for US Ambassador to the UN. A political game is being played over his nomination right now in our Senate with people who habitually mistreat their subordinates accusing others of doing so. I don't doubt they all do. Politics is not a world of pleasant people, particularly behind closed doors. Larger issues are involved here, however. Much larger. Time for the likes of Chris Dodd to get serious (shame on him)!"

  >> Lefty prof Juan Cole: "We've had to put up for months with blowhards like Senator Norm Coleman of Minnesota jumping up and down about the Iraq food for oil scandal at the United Nations. ... Let's see if Norm Coleman calls for sanctions against US businessmen and petroleum companies tainted by the scandal."

• Several liberal bloggers pick up on DeLay's 4/14 interview with the Washington Times. Those who link: Exegesis; Daily Irrelevant; MyDD; Tbagged...; People's Republic of Seabrook; David Neiwert.

  >> Several pick up on the following exchange: "Mr. Hurt: Have you ever crossed the line of ethical behavior in terms of dealing with lobbyists, your use of government authority or with fundraising? Mr. DeLay: Ever is a very strong word." Markos Moulitsas of DailyKos snarks: "Umm, Tom? The right answer was 'no'."

  >> Not many offer substantial commentary. An exception is Mark A.R. Kleiman, who quotes the Federalist #78 against DeLay's conception of legis. oversight of the jud. branch. He concludes: "I'm starting to think Lynne Cheney might be right: there was obviously something deficient in the teaching of American history in the public schools Tom DeLay attended."

BOLTON: Holding Pattern

Conservative Power Line: "The John Bolton confirmation hearings are a perfect illustration of the failure of the Democrats as an opposition party. Bolton's views on the United Nations should have prompted serious debate on the role of the UN from Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations who surely disagree fundamentally with his views. However, the Dems understand that Bolton's views, and his in-your-face attitude, are popular these days. So instead of engaging in a sustained discussion of substance, like a responsible and principled opposition party would, they argued that Bolton's a bad guy who kisses up to his superiors and mistreats his subordinates. It was a little like the Clarence Thomas hearings, minus the sex (actually the Thomas hearings were essentially minus the sex too)."

Liberal cartoonist "Tom Tomorrow" at This Modern World comments on David Brooks' latest column: "McBobo's latest canard is that opposition to the appointment of John Bolton as UN ambassador is coming primarily from one-world utopians who in their heart of hearts want to abolish national borders and create a world governing authority, but gosh darn it, this tough-talking Bolton fellow stands in the way of their squishy-headed dream. Oy. Brooks doesn't content himself with building straw men. Brooks builds straw populations."

Also Bolton-related, is reaction to a piece by the Washington Post's Robin Givhan -- whose story on Sec/State Condoleezza Rice's black boots was much-commented on a few weeks ago -- on Bolton's personal appearance. Right-leaning Bill Ardolino describes it as Givhan's "latest fusion of deep political analysis and a bitchy makeover show," and opines: "Might I argue that Robin Givhan is an enjoyably shallow twit?" Left-leaning Michael Froomkin: "I suppose there has been a dumber Washington Post article, but offhand I can't think of one."

DELAY: No Real Change Here, Either

Centrist Andrew Sullivan: "I'm not that impressed with the ethical complaints against him. His sleaze doesn't seem to me to be that unusual. .... The problem with DeLay is that he's a repulsive figure on television and elsewhere. I've never met him and can't believe he's this repellent in person (he wouldn't have done so well in politics if he were). But his religious fanaticism, his seething hatred for his opponents, his natural proclivity for arrogance all reflect a real problem for the GOP. He does indeed represent what the party seems to be becoming. That's why he won't be forced out."

Right-leaning Ankle-Biting Pundits, on Rep. Chris Shays (R-CT): "The only reason Shays remains a Republican is so he can get fawning articles like this in the MSM. Think about it, if he was a Democrat (In Name), he'd just be another one of Nancy Pelosi's crackpots ignored by rational people. But because he has an (R) behind his name he becomes an 'oracle' to the MSM. Oh, and if you don't think the media is biased -- they describe Shays as an 'outspoken centrist'. Yeah, if the 'center' is between Bernie Sanders and Barney Frank."

Liberal Tapped's Sam Rosenfeld quotes from a memo by GOP strategist/DeLay consultant Barbara Comstock, distributed at Grover Norquist's well-known weekly meeting, and summarizes: "The theme here: everybody does it!" Adds Rosenfeld: "[I]f 'everybody's rotten' becomes the GOP's go-to defense, Democrats will have reason to be pleased, not only because they stand to win out in any serious investigation into these kinds of ethics questions, but also because a pervasive public mood of generalized hostility to Congress -- leading to a 'throw the bums out' atmosphere in the midterm elections -- will inevitably redound to the benefit of the party out of power."

BLOGS VS. THE MSM: They Just Can't Help It

Conservative Patrick Ruffini on the Washington Post's "perennial 'skeptic'" Dan Froomkin, who "sees yet another cheap excuse to bash George W. Bush" for his visit to Ft. Hood. "How do we know when Froomkin is on the attack? Usually the moment his column goes up in the morning. Here's his lead: 'Behind closed doors at the Ft. Hood army base on Tuesday, President Bush got an earful from some Iraq-war widows, who told him that the way the government is treating them is disgraceful ... NB: Froomkin even recycles the retracted title of a March 1 piece on troubles with the Governors, 'Bush Gets an Earful.' Does Froomkin think a meeting with military widows is somehow comparable to a budget squabble, and hence an equally opportune moment to score political points?"

SOCIAL SECURITY: Let's Play What If

Right-leaning One-Handed Economist lists a number of things he could buy "if the government wasn't stealing 6.25% of my salary to give to old people," and adds: "Now maybe you think some old person I've never met and who planned for his or her retirement poorly is more important than my here-to-fore entirely hypothetical Plasma TV. Okay, but is that person more important than my here-to-fore entirely hypothetical equity in a townhouse? What about my hypothetical S&P investment? What about my hypothetical car insurance? Or my extra 200 square feet? My extra 401(k) and Roth IRA contributions? My car savings? Suddenly it's not so easy ... I know you can't just hack benefits off now, today, because people have the expectation of it. I have suggested before, though, that it wouldn't really be any different just to outright screw everyone under 25 ... and phase out the plan because I'm pretty sure those of us under that age aren't expecting anything anyway."

WHITE HOUSE '08: Hillarygaming

Mickey Kaus: "No bit of recent news was better for Hillary [Clinton] than GOP consultant Arthur Finkelstein's announcement that he's ginning up a "Stop Her Now" political action committee for her 2006 New York Senate race. Finkelstein won't beat her, but he (and other similar anti-HRC entrepreneurs staging Swift-ish attacks) will draw enough press attention to disgust the left and provoke an instinctive rally-rounding defense of her. Once she's emotionally re-bonded to them in their aversion to the GOP and its tactics, their hers -- the way the GOP right was Bush's after the 2000 South Carolina primary -- freeing her to a) win the primaries and b) move to the center for the general election without having to worry about losing the left."

Liberal Bob Somerby at the Daily Howler has a lengthy comment on the upcoming anti-HRC book and promises by FNC's Bill O'Reilly -- whon Somerby notes "was, in fact, much fairer to Gore in Campaign 2000 than almost anyone else on cable" -- to defend her against it.

More Kaus, on why John Kerry hasn't signed form 180: "I think I've figured it out: There is so much positive, helpful information for Kerry in those military records that he's waiting until January, 2008 to sign the form! Hillary won't know what hit her."

THE VATICAN: The Oncoming Enclave

National Review's Michael Novak, in The Corner: "Now that the Italian press is reporting that Cardinal Josef Ratzinger ... has already received the support of 40, maybe 50 cardinals, out of the 77 votes needed to be elected the next Pope, it is time for the American media to begin searching into the mind and heart of one so close to JPII."

Worth checking out: Against The Grain, official blog of the unofficial Ratzinger Fan Club, which has been especially active in the past week or so.

IN THE STATES: Virginia Is For Fighters, Too

Liberal MyDD quotes VA AG Jerry Kilgore's (R) spokesperson on VA LG Tim Kaine (D): "Fifty-seven percent of Kaine's money came from Howard Dean. Between Howard Dean's money and Tim Kaine's liberal record, Kaine is well on his way to becoming governor of Vermont." MyDD's "CAat14k" responds: "Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not sure who, besides an arch-conservative, could label Kaine's voting record as "liberal." Kaine's own staff and supporters describe him as "moderate to conservative" and he won't be getting the backing of NARAL any time soon. And I'm pretty sure the DNC funds are from the grassroots fundraising bonanza the DNC has experienced with Dean at the helm. Comparing Kaine to Dean is a clear signal this is going to be a nasty, nasty race."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Horsefeathers!

Reuters reports that two MIT students got a computer-generated academic paper accepted at an academic conference. Title of paper: "Rooter: A Methodology for the Typical Unification of Access Points and Redundancy." Right-leaning Pejman Yousefzadeh argues: "Jibberish writing has become so accepted and so commonplace in academia that few even think to look askance at it anymore -- making pranks such as this one (and [NYU physics prof Alan] Sokal's, for that matter) all the easier to pull off. Perhaps it is time to build a consensus around the idea that if writing is not clear, crystalline and easily accessible, it ought to beviewed with some suspicion. As I have mentioned before, my graduate school professors oftentimes told us that if we encounter impenetrable writing, we may reasonably suspect that the argument contained in that writing is full of holes, and that the author is simply trying to paper over those holes with writing that is abstruse and is designed to fool readers into thinking that they are stupid for not understanding it."

LEST WE FORGET: Special One-Time-Only (Maybe) Baseball Edition

Nats partisan BallWonk Photoshops the face of Nationals 2B Jose Vidro onto Little Orphan Annie, and writes Nats'-specific lyrics to the music from the musical:

ANDY DUNN The bubbling hot tub is to the left.

VIDRO
(spoken)
Inside the clubhouse? Oh boy.

ANDY DUNN

The putting green is in the rear.

VIDRO
(spoken)
I never even picked up a club.

ANDY DUNN
Have an instructor here at noon.
(spoken)
Oh, and get that Tiger Woods fellow if he's available.

VIDRO
I think I'm gonna like it here.

Plus, Political Teen features video of Bush throwing out the first ball, with a retrospective of other first-pitches.

Posted by at 12:53 PM

April 14, 2005

4/14: All In The Family

Assuming that House Maj. Tom DeLay bothers to keep abreast of the blogosphere, he might be simultaneously pleased and displeased at what they're saying. Unfortunately for him, he's still a major topic of discussion -- other controversies have risen and fallen, but DeLay keeps coming back. On the other hand, the debate has spun off several sub-controversies which actually deflect some of the heat. Case in point are new reports on how other members of Congress have family on staff. One of the most-widely cited examples is Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-VT); the conservative blogs are singling this out. Then again, even on conservative blogs one hears doubts or concerns about DeLay. A common assertion goes like: 'I'm not a big fan of DeLay, but he didn't do anything wrong.'"

Meanwhile, liberal bloggers are unimpressed with his expressed regrets about comments he made regarding judges -- which some-to-many took as threats against the judiciary -- in the wake of the Terri Schiavo case. Plenty of liberal blogs are also concerned about permanent repeal of the estate tax ("death tax" to conservatives, "inheritance tax" to liberals) which has passed the House and is headed to the Senate.

Also in the blogs: John Bolton's temper, Rupert Murdoch's vision, and one DeLay supporter's confusion about his hometown.

TRACKBACKS: Motion For DeLay

Where the blog swarm is headed, who's taking part, and what they're saying:

• Which members of Congress have family members on payroll? The Los Angeles Times and VT's Bennington Banner (focusing on Sanders) both have widely linked stories. And the AP provides a list of all members with family on payroll. Bloggers linking to any of the above tend to be conservatives or centrists: Brothers Judd; Joe's DartBlog; Signifying Nothing; GOPBbloggers; Centerfield; Asymmetrical Informationl; Instapundit; Potomac Gadfly; FullosseousFlap's Dental Blog; Slings and Arrows; Swing State Project.

  >> From the AP numbers, right-leaning Outside the Beltway's James Joyner puts together an "admittedly crude" data table to find out which member's family members are paid the most. DeLay comes in 3rd. Adds Joyner: "The bottom line is that, unless DeLay's wife and daughter are not actually doing the jobs for which they're being paid, there's nothing unusual going on here. I'm no fan of DeLay's but this doesn't strike me as problematic within the confines of the current system."

  >> Centrist Roger L. Simon: "I had to laugh when I read that the former 'socialist' mayor of Burlington has been caught with his wife and step-daughter on the payroll from campaign donations. Those who think this exonerates Tom DeLay, accused of the same thing, are of course ridiculous. To the extent this may or may not be legal or improper, it doesn't necessarily implicate or exonerate either of them."

  >> Conservative American Princess, on payrolled family members: "It's hypocrisy, pure and simple. But I also say its corruption, flat out. These practices may not be illegal, but they are definitely not above the ethical radar. I think its time that Congress called an end to these practices. Its all fun and games until someone loses their chair."

  >> Liberal Media Lies, from the Banner story: "Somewhere in Washington, Tom Delay is smiling. I'm not."

• Drawing some attention as well are reports, particularly from the Washington Post and New York Times, about DeLay's apparent apology at the 4/13 presser. Most linking, but not all, are lefty blogs: Bark Bark Woof Woof; Abysmal Kingdom of Mike; The Moderate Voice; DailyKos.

  >> Centrist law prof Ann Althouse: "It's true, there are congressional checks on the judiciary, but we expect you to exercise them responsibly. The really effective congressional check, however, is the Senate's power to confirm. DeLay, not being in the Senate, is left to chatter about impeachment (ridiculous), the 'power of the purse' (underfund the courts? that's just destructive), and cutting back jurisdiction (show me the proposal and I'll comment). In short, he's just saber-rattling, or as I prefer to call it "purse swinging." I know he's hot to keep some sort of Schiavo-momentum going. But the serious debate about judges is the one going on in the Senate."

  >> Liberal lawyer Jeralyn Merritt calls it a "non-apology" and adds: "If one of my clients gave this kind of apology at a sentencing, the Judge would throw the book at him ... he's not sorry for the content of his intemperate remarks, only for the way he phrased them. That's like saying he isn't sorry for the crime, only that he got caught.

  >> Eric Pfeiffer from Beltway Buzz is one of the few conservatives to jump in on the DeLay presser, to criticize the Times: "While the Washington Post, USA Today, Chicago Tribune and other media outlets perform admirable jobs of covering the DeLay press conference yesterday; the New York Times pulls off another hack job." Pfeiffer points out Sheryl Gay Stolberg's lead is: "Deflecting all questions about his ethical conduct and political future, Representative Tom DeLay, the House majority leader, on Wednesday stepped up his crusade against judges."

• And mostly liberal bloggers point up an AP report on the estate tax vote: Demagogue; Skippy the Bush Kangaroo; Political Animal.

  >> Liberal Talking Points Memo: "That is about a trillion fewer dollars in the US Treasury over the course of the same decade in which" Social Security will begin to draw on T-bills to meet its obligations -- "In other words, [GOPers] could not care less about Social Security and everything they say on the subject is a joke." Liberal Left Coaster lists the 40 Dems who voted with the GOP and praises Rep. Jim Leach (R-IA) as having "true courage" for being the only GOPer to oppose it.

  >> Conservative Rossputin: "The debate in Congress is too much about class warfare and not enough about ethical taxation, but I can't complain: Americans don't go for 'soak the rich' so Democratic tactics seem likely to fail. The death tax should soon be killed or severely wounded."

BOLTON: Joltin', Revoltin', Molten ... Bolton!

AlphaPatriot calls the Dems' delay on the cmte vote on John Bolton until next week a "further example of crass obstructionism."

Lefty Steve Clemons: "Big news this morning. [New York Times'] Douglas Jehl reports that Senator Chris Dodd [(D-CT)] is digging deeper into the reasons why John Bolton requested mega-secret intercepts from the National Security Agency. ... Lincoln Chafee [(R-RI)] opened this line of questioning in the Senate hearings. Senator Dodd may be taking it further."

Several conservatives note the Senate testimony [warning: PDF] on Bolton's supposed bad temper: "Was it louder than normal? Probably. I wouldn't characterize it as screaming at me or anything like that. It was more, hands on hips, the body language as I recall it, I knew he was mad."

National Review's Rich Lowry: "We can't have this in the U.S. diplomatic corps! What if Bolton puts his hands on his hips when dealing with a French or North Korean diplomat at the UN? Can you imagine the international outrage? Would our standing in the world ever recover?" Transterrestial Musings' Rand Simberg: "Well, you can imagine that when I read this, I was simply shocked at the thought of such a monster representing us at Turtle Bay, reinforcing our international image as an out-of-control cowboy, hands on hips, fingers just centimeters from holsters. I decided to interview some other former staffers to see if this frightening incident was just the tip of an iceberg of hot fury. I got a few leads from the DNC, and came up with some pretty juicy stuff." Simberg then "interviews" 3 fictional people.

Blogs for Bush's Mark Noonan quotes the Washington Post's Dana Milbank, on Bolton: "Most Republicans skipped the hearing, leaving Democrats largely unchallenged as they assailed Bolton's knack for making enemies and disparaging the very organization he would serve." Noonan: "Dana: Bolton will not serve the United Nations; he'll be serving the United States in the United Nations. His loyalty is to country, not to corrupt and worthless international talk shop. This does illustrate, however, the leftwing/MSM view that the UN is over and above the United States and that anyone we send there should, after all is said and done, serve the United Nations and not the United States."

Reason's Jacob Sullum, at Hit and Run: " The usual phrase is 'only hearing what he wants to hear,' and clearly that was not Bolton's problem, although it may have been [Pres.] Bush's and Vice President Dick Cheney's in connection with Iraq. Nor was Bolton, per Ford's account, simply guilty of tautologically wanting to hear what he wanted to hear. Rather, he was guilty of trying to silence someone who disagreed with him, either because he was certain the analyst was wrong or because he thought the truth didn't matter."

DELAY: Yes, There's More

Common Cause's CommonBlog: "Here's the question reporters should be asking: does this use of government resources [i.e., conf. calls from DeLay's office involving the NRCC and RNC] comply with House ethics rules? Here's the thing: the NRCC and the RNC are political. They are in the business of running campaigns. It would be against House ethics rules for DeLay to conduct any election-related business out of his office on the Hill. It would be against ethics rules for DeLay to have his legislative staff, who are paid with tax dollars, working with a campaign committee to strategize for his reelection next year. (One that may be a little closer than before, thanks to this mess.)"

Liberal CAP notes at ThinkProgress that its dropthehammer.org website received an error-filled letter from DeLay constituent/Baptist deacon/Pearland, TX city councilman Kevin Cole: "Tom Delay happens to be my congresman [sic] and I am happy with the job he does for me and my district. Why don't you get the F@&* out of our district and leave us alone." Cole also manages to spell Pearland as "Pealrand."

BLOGS VS. THE MSM: The Difference Between Blogging And Reporting

Right-leaning Irish Trojan's Brendan Loy argues that the AP misrepresented Israeli PM Ariel Sharon by reporting that he "ruled out" a strike against Iran, and quotes the transcript, in which Sharon only utters a "bundle of equivocation." Comments Loy: "Bottom line, if Ariel Sharon had wanted to say, 'We are taking the preemptive option off the table,' he could have. But HE DIDN'T. And yet the AP is reporting that he did!" Kausfiles links to Loy and adds: "In this case, the credentialed AP writer had to work from a live broadcast, tape, or transcript, the same as any blogger. Unfortunately, the resulting product does not meet blog standards! ... But, hey, give the AP a special constitutional privilege."

Conservative Power Line's Paul Mirengoff, on why Bush's "poll numbers are down": "Pundits attribute this to gas prices, the Terri Schiavo dispute, the social security debate, etc. I think the answer lies in the fact that people aren't paying much attention to politics, and thus are defaulting to the tenor of MSM spin. This hypothesis is probably impossible to test, but I rely in part on the phenomenon of the convention 'bounce.' Conventions represent one of those moments when America (a) pays some attention to politics and (b) gets a much less MSM-filtered view of the world. Thus, the extent to which a party or does or does not get a convention bounce can be instructive." The Dems "got essentially no bounce," though "their message already had been widely promoted by the MSM." Then thew GOP got "more than" a 5% avg bump -- "He did not obtain this bounce on any spectacularly good news the Republicans were able to tout. He obtained it, I think, because, with a bit of reflection, people realized that on most fronts (the economy and the overall war on terror) things were going reasonably well. Today, the news (if it were reported) is better." Mirengoff compares it to '88, when Mike Dukakis led before the GOP convo: "By the end of that convention, if memory serves, the entire Dukakis lead had disappeared. It's amazing what can happen when Republicans get to talk to America. And it's even possible to talk to America in the absence of a political convention.

Moderate Jeff Jarvis notes that media mogul Rupert Murdoch gave a speech to ASNE (in which Jarvis apparently had some small amount of input) telling those gathered "that papers are whistling in their own graveyard and recommending some solutions, including even blogs." Jarvis: "I was impressed to see Murdoch giving this warning to the nation's august editors -- and also impressed to see him embracing new ways to do things, including citizens' media ... [and acknowledges] that he and the assembled sages aren't the ones to reinvigorate news." Jarvis adds, parenthetically: "I was flattered to be quoted in the speech." Meanwhile, Romenesko picks up on an Editor and Publisher story about it, titled "Murdoch: Newspapers Must Stop Fearing Web".

BLOGS VS. THE WORLD: Culture Of Fear

Nonpartisan Personal Democracy Forum has been debating amongst its contributors the significance and likely impact of FEC and other gov't agency regulation of political blogging. Contributor Chris Nolan thinks the fears are overheated; Mike Krempasky says there's good reason to be concerned. Krempasky also posts a link to S.678 [warning: PDF], Rep. Jeb Hensarling's (R-TX) "Online Freedom of Speech Act."

LEFT VS. RIGHT: Anti-Semitism Watch

Conservative SoxBlog, on the "far left's burgeoning anti-Semitism problem, specifically as it relates to some of the left's ranking blogs." SoxBlog's Dean "James Frederick Dwight" Barnett notes use of Nazi rhetoric by "Armando" of DailyKos and by Oliver Willis -- "widely recognized as the left's dumbest blogger and a relentless imbecile" -- and concedes they probably didn't know what they were saying. But he notices the "notoriously anti-American" Univ. of MI prof Juan Cole, "a man of great learning and erudition," as he "constantly reminds his audience," using the same rhetoric. More: "An additional point of interest is that Juan Cole was on last week's conference call where four star kook Wesley Clark suggested the Bush administration was implementing a foreign policy designed by American Jews Douglas Feith and Richard Perle at the behest of former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. So in sum, Juan Cole and other leftists push long recognized anti-Semitic buttons; they are rewarded by various Democratic politicians cozying up to them.

NON-PROFITS: What the Political Pros Are Using Blogs To Get Across

The blogs at Heritage Foundation and Club For Growth both link to FactCheck.org's critical analysis of the "Social Security calculator" used by Senate Min. Leader Harry Reid.

From the DNC's Kicking Ass blog, on a fundraising drive by DNC chair Howard Dean: "We've been amazed by the support and excitement from Democrats across the country after Gov. Dean's email yesterday." The post links to a DailyKosreader/commenter who made his 1st-ever political donation based on it.

Meanwhile, Ed Kilgore, at unofficial DLC blog New Donkey gives a wide-ranging recap and commentary on Dem struggles with culture issues, as covered in the 3/13 Blogometer.

MISCELLANY: Gay Marriage, Jeff Gannon And Judicial Filibusters -- In That Order

Conservative Ed Morrissey, on CT's passage of a gay marriage bill: "Both sides got some piece of victory, while the centrists won the day. Connecticut will not recognize gay marriage, which fits with the will of the electorate. On the other hand, the legislature made a perfectly rational decision about reinforcing contract law by allowing two adults to form a legal partnership that regulates the public portion of their lives."

At liberal DailyKos, "ePluribus Media" documents that there is no evidence that James Guckert -- known to the world as "Jeff Gannon" -- ever served in the Marines, as he has claimed. Mr. or Ms. Media explains the search and adds: "If Guckert now wishes to change his "patriotic" claim of Marine Corps service to ... say ... the Navy Seals, ePluribus Media would be willing to follow-up on that as well. It's amazing what you can accomplish with more than 800 volunteer investigators."

Conservative Hugh Hewitt writes on the "risks of continued dithering" re: judges and filibusters: "The result is that the GOP is in real danger of alienating a significant slice of its activist base -- a base that has gladly contributed to the campaigns" of the newest GOP sens. "because it understood the need to add Republicans if the body was going to work. ... Now it is being ignored or, worse, condescended to with pull quotes on the need to look beyond the immediate impasse. Talk of senators 'studying' precedents and of the 'cooling saucer' role of the 'greatest deliberative body' in the world have gone from merely annoying to the source of genuine estrangement."

IN THE STATES: Fairness For Fraudulency?

PoliPundit's Jason Javitz, on a promise by Gov. Jim Doyle (D-WI) to veto a bill requiring ID to vote: "You know, the exact same items which are necessary to cash checks (including welfare, SSI, Social Security, and unemployment insurance benefit drafts), to make bank withdrawals, to enter safe deposit boxes, and to buy stuff, with credit cards. But, frankly, I don't blame Governor Doyle ... Without corpses, family pets, non-existent voters, and ineligible felons voting for Democrats, multiple times, in multiple precincts, in states like Wisconsin, by way of example, our intellectual superiors in the media, and academia, then would be saddled with absolute GOP hegemony of a kind unseen in U.S. history."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: What's In A Blog?

Righty Michelle Malkin, on a Wall Street Journal poll about blog readership: "If there are 120 million Americans adults online, this survey suggests that 31 million Americans read a political blog at least once a month and 6 million Americans read a political blog at least once a day. This would mean that Instapundit is read by less than 3% of those who read political blogs on a daily basis. I don't believe it. I suspect the survey results would be quite different if respondents were informed that the Drudge Report, Slate, Free Republic, Democratic Underground, rushlimbaugh.com, and lucianne.com are not blogs."

LEST WE FORGET:

Lefty iFlipFlop: "My friend, Bill, sent me this photo with the caption, 'I love the South.' The picture made me think, here's George Bush's base. ... What do you think the odds are on Bush supporters watching Queer Eye for the Straight Guy? If they had, this dude would have done a little manscaping."

Want to see the picture? Are you sure? Click here, and don't say we didn't warn you.

Posted by at 12:55 PM

April 13, 2005

4/13: Filiblustering

Although no one knows for certain if Senate Maj. Leader Bill Frist has the votes to exercise the "nuclear" -- or as some GOPers call it, "constitutional" -- option and end the practice of filibusters, that hasn't stopped bloggers left and right from commenting. It's definitely the top issue on the blogs today. As mentioned in yesterday's Blogometer, liberals are split on the matter -- with a surprising number eager to see Frist "pull the trigger." Less surprising, a majority of conservative bloggers want to see the same.

Meanwhile, a number of highly-trafficked liberal bloggers have been debating to what degree the Dem party needs to reassure the public that they care about family issues and are not, so to speak, the party of Hollywood. There is no real consensus, but many are skeptical about trying to appear more socially conservative.

After that, today is a bit of a grab-bag.

TRACKBACKS: One Good Tierney Deserves Another

Where the blog swarm is headed, who's taking part, and what they're saying:

• A New York Times report suggesting the GOP "may hasten" the fight over judicial filibusters drives much of the talk. Another story from The Hill is well-linked as well. Linking to one or both: Brothers Judd; Blogs for Bush; Blogenlust; Confirm Them; Althouse; Beltway Buzz; Southern Appeal; Daly Thoughts. Not linking, but on-topic: Pandagon, TalkLeft.

  >> Conservative Outside the Beltway: "If the GOP is going to do it, there's no time like the present. The "will they or won't they" speculation has been dragging on for months. ... The filibuster is an extra-constitutional device that has been modified numerous times in the past. The system of checks and balances is hardly in jeopardy."

  >> Liberal Talking Points Memo: "Across the board, Tammany rule in the House, keystone kops loyalty tests at presidential events, tolerance and emulation of crankish attacks on sitting judges. This Republican party just isn't a constitutionalist party. It's just not."

  Plenty more on the filibuster debate below.

• Today marks the first column by the New York Times' John Tierney, who replaces William Safire. Unsuprisingly, Times columnists frequently generate a lot of trackbacks. Today is no exception, as Tierney discusses the futures market Intrade, its success in predicting the '04 election and its predictions for the papal conclave. Linkers are mostly conservatives or Times-watchers: QandO; Tom Maguire; Outside the Beltway; Lying in Ponds; Random Birkel; Political Fictions.

  >> Right-leaning law prof Stephen Bainbridge connects it back to the recent John Poindexter kerfuffle: "Maybe they should have let DARPA keep its terrorism prediction market, after all?"

  >> Left-leaning Pandagon goes for the snark: "A new take on the same old e-markets crap - it's not just that they'll have a bunch of researchers coming up with the best information to make a profit, maybe we'll get someone to do something wholly unethical in the process ... and get a scoop!"

  >> Not linking but on-topic: Liberal Kevin Drum passes along a BBC story on papal odds, adding: "Personally, I'm plumping for Jaime Ortega. I don't know anything about the guy, and for all I know he might be somewhere to the right of Attila the Hun. But a Cuban pope would be kind of cool. After all, anything that annoys Castro can't be all bad."

FILIBUSTERS: Fill This, Buster

National Review's Ramesh Ponnuru: "I'm hearing that Republicans now have at least 50 votes to change the rules -- which means at least 51 if you add Cheney. Senator Byrd's hysteria helped pad the total. And if Michael Crowley's reporting in the New Republic is correct -- and I have no reason to think it isn't -- the Democrats have no idea what to do about it."

Conservative RedState: "If Frist changes the rule, so the Senate Democrats do anything substantive? My guess is that they absolutely have to if they intend to be taken seriously. This matter has been too publicly central to their agenda for too long, and through two electoral defeats, that they risk further marginalization at a time when they're leaping up and down, pleading to be taken seriously." The commenters run overwhelmingly in favor of pulling the trigger."

Lefty Mark Schmitt, who worked for then-Sen. Bill Bradley (D) when he delivered a filibuster, writes about that experience and adds: "Opponents of the filibuster argue that without it, the Senate would be a responsive, majoritarian institution. In fact, it would be a tightly controlled institution, like the DeLay House, just a lot less representative. The right of unlimited debate and unlimited amendment is a critical part of what makes the Senate an open institution, and losing it would be very costly to progressives at any time when they did not have complete control of both houses and the presidency."

Radio talker Hugh Hewitt has posted transcripts of separate interviews with pro-filibusterist liberals Nan Aron and Ralph Neas.

DEMOCRATS: Maybe Not The Party Of Streisand, But Definitely Not The Party Of Lieberman

On 4/11, Washington Monthly's Amy Sullivan argued -- with an eye toward Hollywood -- that "Americans are very anxious about the idea that people will do whatever they can get away with, and their perception is that Democrats are the ones who let people get away with things." At Tapped, Matt Yglesias took issue with that -- and unlinkable ex-Lieberman guy Dan Gerstein in a WSJ op-ed -- writing: "Feckless posturing a la Joe Lieberman, I suppose, where politicians will publicly denounce various shows, movies, or video games they find distasteful and then not do anything about it. That's better than censorship, and if it's really what the Democrats need to do to win elections I guess I'll live with it, but it's pretty silly." Yesterday, Sullivan responds at Political Animal: "So far, liberals don't seem to have done a bang-up job convincing Americans that those silly little things they worry about aren't that big a deal. I believe there are actually policies Democrats can pursue that don't involve censoring free speech or impacting how adults consume popular culture. But sometimes it's not about policies." Responding to the response, Yglesias writes that Sullivan/Gerstein are "playing a cynical political game" and adds, "if our disagreement is really just about political tactics, let's have the disagreement on those terms without castigating the less-cynical side as composed of insidious 'cultural elites.' If Amy really thinks there is something government ought to do on the merits to curb popular culture, then I'd like to hear what, exactly, it is."

At Eschaton, Duncan Black agrees with the last point, and adds: "Which policies? I'd like to hear about them. Because, otherwise what we're going to get is some grandstanding and nothing. Again, I'm all for some "feel your pain" speeches, but I'd prefer they're followed up with constructive policies which might actually make raising families a wee bit easier -- such as, you know, providing them with health care."

Oliver Willis writes that Sullivan is "advocating yet another plank of the me-too platform," adding: "I don't think such stances account for much among more than the far religious right -- who are already locked up in the GOP column (and considering their predilection towards killing judges, they can stay there). The only Dem who has made this a major issue is Joe Lieberman."

Rox Populi takes it in a different direction: "As smart as some of these bloggers are, I think they're missing a central point. It isn't "elitism" or the crazy-ass idea that artists of various stripes have these "rights of free expression" that we need to protect that drives production in "culture" or anything else. It's Capitalism -- with a big, giant f--ing 'C'. ... Now, if the people who watch the 700 Club were a giant economic force that liked buying shit more than heathens who like Survivor or CSI, you'd see Pat Robertson on ABC 7 nights a week. But, you don't. Do you?"

JustOneMinute and The Moderate Voice take up the issue of feral cats.

DELAY: Shays It Ain't So

Liberal MyDD points out that Rep. Chris Shays (R-CT) voted in favor of the ethics rule change that requires a majority vote to launch an ethics inquiry. "In fact every Republican member of Congress that fancies themselves as moderates, or not tied to the corrupt or is in a highly competitive district voted to gut the ethics panel." More: "The point of recounting this larger history that everyone already knows is to point out that while we may think Chris Shays is a nice guy, and is doing something right by speaking out by saying that Tom Delay should resign, he's already made the most powerful statement on what he thinks should happen to Republican members who traffic in corruption."

CLINTON: Hilliance?

RedState's Jay Cost has a lengthy post on Sen. Hillary Clinton. He starts with the "gospel" that HRC is a great politician: "I have never understood this. Where do her political credentials come from? It seems to me that she was a great supporting player to a good (though highly overrated) politician. She played the part of the forgiving, intelligent, driven wife with great effectiveness. ... Why is she seen to be a political genius? The answer to this question eluded me for a long time, perhaps because it is so simple. The plain fact is that Hillary Clinton is actually one of the worst politicians in national politics today. She is so feared as a brilliant politician only because she is such an obvious politician, which is actually the key mark of a bad politician."

KERRY: Keeping Count

PoliPundit's Lorie Byrd notes that John Kerry is soliciting stories from Iraq: "Share the story of a family you know that has endured hardship in service to our nation." A reader sends in her reply to Kerry: "Dear John, I'd like to share the story of my son's service in Iraq. However, first, can I ask... won't you share YOUR story by signing the SF-180 form to release your military records?"

Worth noting: At the top of the PoliPundit blog, the following has run for a few months: "[X] days ago, John Kerry promised, on national TV, to sign form SF-180 and release his military records. He has yet to do so." This refers to Kerry's "Meet the Press" appearance, where he told Tim Russert he would sign the form; today is day 73. Conservatives point it out from time to time -- such as Instapundit today -- but Dems who don't want a Kerry candidacy in '08 -- most notably Mickey Kaus have pushed it as well, considering it one possible way to get him off the stage.

BLOGS VS. THE MSM: Well, I Do Sinclair! And A Feather In Our Kaplan

DailyKos highlights a Broadcasting and Cable about how ex-Sinclair Broadcasting reporter Jon Lieberman was denied unemployment benefits in MD because: "We're going to have fun challenging Sinclair licenses as they come up for renewal."

From a story in the Daily Illini, MSNBC pres. Rick Kaplan, on blogs: "The bloggers' accuracy rates are good for baseball, not for journalists. A baseball player can make seven out of 10 at bat and be highly respected. If journalists are only right seven out of 10 times, this would be terrible." Ace of Spades HQ responds: "How's that for 'fact-checking' and 'accuracy'? A baseball player batting f---in' seven-hundred would, in Mr. Kaplan's estimation, have a 'good' accuracy rate, and would furthmore be 'highly respected.' Ummmm ... yeah. And a quarterback who passes for, say, eight thousand yards per game would be considered to be 'upper tier' and 'highly productive.'"

Late 4/12, several days after the GOP memo written by a Sen. Mel Martinez (R-FL) aide re: Terri Schiavo made news, "Armando" from DailyKos writes a letter to Washington Post ombudsman Michael Getler. His focus is the "stenographer work" done by the Post's Howard Kurtz for the "extreme Right Wing website" Powerline: "I charge Mr. Kurtz with gross incompetence as a journalist. I believe Mr. Kurtz has much to answer for regarding his performance as media reporter for the Washington Post. As Ombudsman, I believe this deserves your attention."

DailyPundit disputes the contention by Los Angeles Times columnist Robert Scheer that Pres. Bush "dispatched" Bill Bennett to Rome, and obtains a statement rebutting Scheer from Bennett's radio producer.

SOCIAL SECURITY: In Case You Haven't Noticed, This Issue Is Mostly Dormant

Liberal economist Brad DeLong continues his "Why Oh Why Can't We Have a Better Press Corps?" series with a criticism of a Washington Post editorial favoring Bush's stance on Social Security. The Post recommends dealing with Social Security now, even though Medicare is a bigger problem. DeLong responds: "Dropping a less important issue to deal with a more important issue is 'irresponsible'? In what quadrant could that possibly be true? ... What the Post editorial board does not say is that it has taken on the mission of helping the senior Republican politicians in their corrupt and incompetent irresponsibility by attacking people who actually have a clear view of America's relative fiscal policy challenges.

Meanwhile, pro-accounts SocialSecurityChoice.org's David Hogberg names Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY) this week's "Social Security Ostrich," with the full Photoshop treatment.

IN THE STATES: She's Pro-Bush All The Way

Minneapolis Star Tribune reports that bloggers have posted photos of state Sen./MN 06 candidate Michele Bachmann (R) -- the chief sponsor of a state marriage amendment -- was apparently photographed hiding behind bushes at a gay rights rally. The Strib attributes the photos to Dump Bachmann, though they were first posted -- and are easiest to find -- at Eleventh Avenue South. Meanwhile, Students for Bachmann says the article "clear[s] the air" on the subject.

WHITE HOUSE '04: Tying Up Some Loose Ends

In the 3/'05 Vanity Fair, contrarian Christopher Hitchens wrote a serious-minded article alleging troubling problems with the OH vote. Yesterday, a diarist at conservative RedState rebuts Hitchens' article, point-by-point.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Yes, But Without The Drugs

Republic of Heaven: "A recent hypertext trail of posts and comments, which I followed from Obsidian Wings to Jane Galt, sparked some thoughts I've been entertaining about another paradigm that might be useful for thinking about at least some of what goes down on weblogs. In brief, the idea is that one things good weblog discussions and postings do is to recreate the important experience of late-night collegiate bullshit sessions."

LEST WE FORGET: Eye Of The Beholder

BlameBush's "Liberal Larry": "A great big Toot o' the Hooka to Portland's Mayor Potter for his courageous stand against gender fascism by refusing to endorse the Mrs. Oregon Pageant. In a thinly veiled attack on the Gay and Transgendered Community, the pageant has now officially restricted itself to females who were born without penises and are married to members of the Opressor Gender. The same right-wing lunatics who are destroying America with their religious idealism have apparently hijacked the annual pageant and turned it into some sort of beauty contest."

You can probably tell, but BlameBush not a left-wing blog; it's a parody of a left-wing blog. Just making sure.

Posted by at 12:56 PM

April 12, 2005

4/12: Fudge And The Fudging Fudgers Who Do So

Today is such a "Blogs vs. the MSM" day that the 2 main stories in our "Trackbacks" section would have fallen under that category if we'd moved them down: The first is conservative Bob Novak's 4/11 column about the New York Times asking ex-Rep. Bob Livingston (R) for an op-ed criticizing House Maj. Leader Tom DeLay but losing interest when he indicated his support for DeLay. Bloggers of all stripes (though mostly conservative ones) like to pile on the Times. Today a perhaps-surprising number decline to do so in this instance, noting how editorial pages work. Most left bloggers note the error in Novak's first version, where he failed to mention Rep. Chris Shays' (R-CT) criticism of DeLay.

The second is Chris Suellentrop's New York profile of New Yorker contributor Seymour Hersh, and the unverifiable accusations he levels against the U.S. in speeches but never in print. The Hersh story is actually one that began on the blogs last year, when left-leaner Ed Cone transcribed one of these Hersh speeches. However, if any lefty blogs had serious comment on this story today, the Blogometer missed them.

Also making the rounds: A surprising number of liberals are concluding that they wouldn't mind so much if the GOP did away with the filibuster rule; John Bolton gets some scrutiny, but John Kerry and the AP get more; and, a prominent Dem starts hanging with Lyndon LaRouche.

TRACKBACKS: The Prince Of Darkness And The Gray Lady

Where the blog swarm is headed, who's taking part, and what they're saying:

• The Novak column is attracting plenty of attention. Linking: Betsy's Page; ; The Anchoress; Roger Ailes; Orrin Judd; The Moderate Voice; Small Precautions; Balloon Juice; Here's What's Left; Crooks and Liars.

  >> The liberal blogs are all in agreement with Pandagon's assessment: "Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that it was common practice to shop around for voices on editorial pages." ThinkProgress points out that elsewhere in the column, Novak writes that no GOPer had called for him to step down -- though Chris Shays already had.

  >> Some conservatives tend to agree, including Jonah Goldberg: "[Novak's] column today in the Washington Post claims that the fact the New York Times op-ed page tried to get Bob Livingston to write an op-ed calling for Delay to resign just isn't shocking in my book. As David Broder said a long time ago, political journalism is basically a fight-promoting business. The news value in an op-ed from Livingston only exists if he calls on Delay to resign." Goldberg also notes the Novak column is updated in light of Shays' statements.

  >> But a few righties take the anti-NYT tack, including Blog From On High: "The New York Times isn't simply a second-rate newspaper. It is, first and foremost, the organ of the Democratic party. These days, there are examples galore. ... They have gotten their marching orders from the DNC and are working diligently to drum up a scandal that might do damage to the most powerful and effective Republican politician on the national scene today -- save one."

• Suellentrop describes the "two Hershes" -- "Seymour M.," who "navigates readers through the byzantine world of America's overlapping national-security bureaucracies," and "Sy," the pundit who is "willing to tell a story that's not quite right, in order to convey a Larger Truth." Several bloggers seize on this Hersh admission: "Sometimes I change events, dates, and places in a certain way to protect people. I can't fudge what I write. But I can certainly fudge what I say." Linkin' 'logs: Mudville Gazette; The Corner; Romenesko; Instapundit; Ed Cone; Don Singleton; Pejmanesque.

  >> Dough Petch: "Let me see if I have this straight. Hersh tells unverifiable stories. We're supposed to accept the underlying truths in what he says due to his reputation and journalistic integrity. But doesn't his admitted story-telling fly in the face of that very same journalistic integrity? And why should we accept that he would never take the easy way out by engaging in the same subterfuge to make a print story 'work'?"

  >> Balloon Juice: "I propose we call this Eason Jordan Syndrome -- when a titled figure shows a willingness to informally pass off as fact things he/she would never consider stating officially or on record, because, of course, they aren't facts at all. Just vicious lies."

FILIBUSTER: Oh No, Not The Filibuster! Take Anything But The Filibuster!

In recent weeks, a few conservative orgs. have "broken ranks" to support continued filibusters, while liberal opinionakers such as the New Yorker's Hendrik Hertzberg have argued for their end. A number of liberal bloggers have been debating this fiercely, and most seem to conclude: Let the GOP "go nuclear."

The Decembrist defends filibusters writing, "it's tricky to predict the substantive results of any purely procedural change, because a change can have very different results depending on other circumstances," and descibes "the most plausible 'principled' point in favor of the filibuster: that it should always be difficult for a majority, which might be a temporary majority, to bind future majorities. ... On balance, it's hard to really score this, but I think that right now at least, the radical right has a rich agenda of things-that-cannot-be-undone, on the environmental, legal, and economic fronts, and we have much to gain by being able to stop them."

Nathan Newman replies, the "only reason progressives were able to clean up the deficits of the Reagan era was because the GOP could not filibuster Clinton's 1993 tax increases ... Tax cuts will always be more popular than tax increases, so thank the stars that we don't have a filibuster on the budget, or else we would have a continual ratcheting down of federal revenue with little ability to ever raise taxes in the face of grandstanding conservative filibusters. This just reinforces my point that filibusters are inherently more of an obstacle to progressive government than a block to conservative politics."

Matthew Yglesias agrees: "So what the filibuster lets you do, basically, is prevent the GOP from implementing relatively minor, grossly ill-conceived corporate giveaways that can be pretty easily repealed next time the wheels of power switch. What the filibuster lets the GOP do, by contrast, is impede popular structural reforms of American social and economic life that, though controversial at the time (Social Security, Civil Rights) would, if implemented, rapidly become popular unrepealable measures. Ergo, ditch the filibuster."

Kevin Drum adds a condition: "If Democrats were to agree to eliminate the filibuster, the deal should take effect only after the 2008 election and should also include reinstatement of the old blue slip rules. That's a fair trade."

Meanwhile, anti-filibuster conservative Hugh Hewitt notes that liberal activists Nan Aron and Ralph Neas are pro-filibuster, and applies pressure to "wobbly" GOP Sens. John Sununu and John Warner.

BOLTON: After A Slow Start ...

On 4/11 p.m., National Review's Eric Pfeiffer asks: "Did Kerry Out a Federal Agent During Bolton Hearing?" A reader sends him a rush transcript of the hearing, where John Kerry momentarily uses the name Fulton Armstrong to describe a CIA agent Bolton wanted removed from a position, rather than "Smith."

Righty Charles Johnson raised the same issue before revising his post to add: "To be fair, Fulton Armstrong's name appears in numerous documents available to the public." But not before liberal TalkLeft chides him for fanning the flames. Others point out that Armstrong's bio is available on the web. This a.m., Pfeiffer concurs and speculates: "Could it be then that Armstrong simply asked to be referred to as 'Mr. Smith' for his own preference of personal anonymity?"

Arms Control Wonk provides 4 previous media citations for Fulton. Right-leaning Betsy Newmark: "So, what's going on? How come we're only hearing about this now? Or is this guy not the mysterious Mr. Smith? OR is the media making a big deal out of something that didn't happen? We await the Associated PRess's clarification."

But the news is slow to spread -- the latest posts by conservative blogs Signifying Nothing, Blogs for Bush and Ranting Profs. As of 10 this a.m., the Drudge Report had the link in red: "Kerry Blows CIA Agent Cover?..."

Meanwhile, not a great number of lefty bloggers are discussing their specific objections to Bolton. "Atrios" asks: "Isn't the mustache reason enough to vote against him?" Tapped did a round-up yesterday -- mostly MSM stories -- and today they focus more on DeLay and DNI dir.-designate John Negroponte.

Liberal David Corn draws readers' attention to a political ad on his site, a Kerry-sponsored ad imporing Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) to vote against John Bolton. Corn: "Finally, after all those years of toil, the big payoff: I've bagged $60.00 from the John Kerry campaign." Corn offers the "Cuba episode" as a good example of why Bolton is unsuitable for the job, and adds: "I wish progressive bloggers were as fixated upon him as many of them have been on Jeff Gannon/James Guckert. The Democrats on the foreign affairs committee are trying to rough up Bolton. But they could use some bucking-up from the MoveOn gang, on-line Democratic activists, and such."

Left-leaning World O' Crap: "Everybody who has had a boss like Bolton knows how much damage they can do just by being jerks -- and doesn't the UN have enough problems already without inflicting Bolton on them?"

Right-leaning Power Line, on the protestors who broke in with signs saying: "No Bolton, Yes UN": "I suspect that what she really means is 'No USA, Yes UN.' But, as annoyed as I am by these protesters, the Democrats should be apoplectic. This is exactly the kind of publicity they don't need, especially in a context where they are taking a position that many construe as hostile or indifferent toward American interests. If I were running the Democratic Party, I'd do everything in my power to keep Code Pink off the evening news."

DELAY: Where Have We Seen This Before?

Left-leaning "Billmon" of Whiskey Bar, onthe DeLay questions and those that brought down Dem House Speaker Jim Wright in '89: "I realize I'm not the first political blogger to notice that the two stories resemble each other. But I think I may be the first (or one of the first; it's a big blogosphere) to notice just how much they resemble each other -- right down to the fine print, so to speak. This really is one of those cases where you could change a few names, substitute the word 'Democrat' for 'Republican' and 'Republican' for 'Democrat,' and nobody would have the faintest idea which scandal you were describing." Billmon provides a dozen side-by-side comparisons from news coverage then and now, drawing interesting parallels.

Tapped's Yglesias: "I continue to have concerns about the Democratic strategy surrounding the Tom DeLay matter. What, for example, is the DCCC doing trumpeting efforts by vulnerable Republicans to distance themselves from DeLay? They should be emphasizing everyone's ties with DeLay. Rick Santorum is just the Senate version of DeLay. And I'm totally unimpressed with Chris Shays's conversion to the anti-DeLay cause. Abandoning your friends when they get in hot water shows you're a coward, not a principled and independent thinker."

BLOGS VS. THE MSM: Are The Times A-Changin'?

Conservative Patterico's Pontifications highlights a bylined Los Angeles Times staff opinion piece which sees GOP hypocrisy in currently opposing a filibuster, but doesn't cite the mirrored shift among Dems: "Note to the author: you're writing a clearly labeled opinion piece. You don't have to use the time-worn trick of talking about what 'many' think when you're really talking about what you think. Just say: 'I see a healthy dose of hypocrisy.' Try it; it's liberating. Hardly surprising that the 'hypocrisy' you see is that of Republicans. ... 'Many' see hypocrisy in [Dem statements] too. But the 'many' don't work at the L.A. Times."

Righty Michelle Malkin notes a new column by the New York Times' Nick Kristof in which he "argues that the press needs to take bolder steps to reconnect with the public." Malkin replies: "All well and good, but Kristof himself still has not retracted his unsubstantiated claim that the number of abortions "increased significantly" after President George W. Bush took office in January 2001." Lefty Jesse Taylor takes the opposite point of view: "The major problem with the media is not one of partisanship. They are self-styled ministers of information, who choose themselves not to be informed. It's why they've been getting pushed around like chumps by the conservative anti-media brigade - they won't bother to inform themselves about it, and step in with all the naivete of a 12-year-old told that if their hand is bigger than their face, it means they'll get cancer."

VodkaPundit notes that a number of news orgs. are backing the defendants in the Apple v. Does case where bloggers/indie news sites leaked/broke info about upcoming Macintosh products, and asks: "Let me get this straight. We're journalists when we're taking on a big, bad corporation. But when we're taking on big-name politicians, we're pajama-wearing cranks."

RACE: Strictly For My ... Actually, We'll Leave This One Alone

A number of black conservative bloggers have created a page linking to them each and calling themselves The Conservative Brotherhood.

Wizbang's (non-black) "Jay Tea": "The countdown for David S. Anderson's head to explode and Oliver Willis to start screaming about 'Uncle Toms,' 'race traitors,' 'self-haters,' and the like begins in 5... 4... 3... 2..." Willis, in the comments: "I have never called anybody an 'Uncle Tom' or a 'race traitor'." Anderson comments at his own blog: "Proving Howard Dean was right all along, this still does not provide enough Republican members of color to fill a hotel conference room, but RNC Chair Ken Mehlman just might be able to finally form that first ever GOP Basketball team!"

Some commenters object that the site has a racial requirement, which is antithetical to the melting pot, even racist.

At her own blog, Baldilocks responds: "Perhaps the reaction to the Conservative Brotherhood has a far simpler explanation; in the minds of some, anything that is all-black brings unconscious negative connotations. Hence the 'cutting yourselves off' assumption and the totally ridiculous assertion that we were equating race with writing ability. No ethnically Hawaiian or Dutch-American association would ever have to contend with such negative stereotypes."

Also linking: Booker Rising; Joe Gandelman

TAXES: On Second Thought, Just Give Me Death

Liberal Left Coaster: "'It's your money' exclaims king George. And yet, he's got his hand out for more of 'my money' than the 25% I'm supposedly paying! ... I know that I am on the edge of having to pay AMT, just like many have discussed for a while now. I was pondering this situation while trying to sleep. I think I now understand why Bu$hCo claims 'deficits don't matter'! They are going to tax them away without raising taxes!"

Conservative Captain's Quarters: "Tax simplification makes enormous sense on many levels, even if it doesn't mean going to a complete flat tax, which I'd prefer. Treating all income equally and reducing deductions to a bare minimum would not only make tax preparation easier, it would also make enforcement a breeze."

DWORKIN: Goodbye, Sour Princess

Anti-porn feminist Andrea Dworkin died over the weekend; the UK Guardian obit leads most of the coverage. Reason's Tim Cavanaugh, at Hit and Run: "Elaine Showalter once said nobody would wake up at 4am to watch Dworkin's funeral, but looking over the range of people from the left, right, and center who came together to despise her, we begin to see Dworkin's real legacy: She was a uniter, not a divider." This is not entirely the case, as "Athena" at DailyKos defends her: "She invited much hostility because of her views, but I regard her as a truth-teller. The vehemence raised against her only verified the power of her insights." More to Cavanaugh's point, Outside the Beltway is typical: "I should offer some compassionate words of grievance for someone passing so young. But it's hard to generate much sympathy for such a vile, contemptible bitch."

IN THE STATES: The Conyers-LaRouche Connection Is No Conspiracy Theory

Politics1's Ron Gunzberger posts an exclusive: Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) is "now consorting with LaRouche. On March 23, Conyers was the featured speaker at an event in Detroit sponsored by the LaRouche Political Action Committee ... This wasn't Conyers' first interaction with the LaRouche group, but it is his most overt move." Gunzberger even posts a photo of Conyers at the event. In 12/04 he "invited LaRouche's group to present political testimony of alleged GOP voter suppression before an unofficial panel he chaired -- and LaRouche in return praised Conyers for doing so." Writes Gunzberger: "Is it appropriate for any Democratic officials to attend LaRouche-sponsored events? I think the answer is pretty clear. Perhaps it is time for Congressman Conyers -- after serving 41 years in the House -- to consider retiring in 2006."

Dem-leaning TX blog Politico posts the names of 13 GOP state reps. the Dems will target in '06.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Onion Strikes Again?

On 4/11, many conservative bloggers noted how Kerry said over the weekend: "Leaflets are handed out saying Democrats vote on Wednesday, Republicans vote on Tuesday. People are told in telephone calls that if you've ever had a parking ticket, you're not allowed to vote." The WSJ's James Taranto quotes a pre-election article where Kerry "probably" got the idea: "With the knowledge that the minority vote will be crucial in the upcoming presidential election, Republican Party officials are urging blacks, Hispanics, and other minorities to make their presence felt at the polls on Wednesday, Nov. 3." And Taranto adds: "Before Kerry embarrasses himself further, someone ought to take him aside and explain to him that the Onion is a satirical publication -- as is ScrappleFace.com, which came up with the idea first."

LEST WE FORGET: Mullets Galore

The "America We Stand As One" video. The Blogometer offers no comment, but Metafilter puts it well: "Can't stop watching. For all the wrong reasons." And there's already a remix.

Posted by at 12:57 PM

April 11, 2005

4/11: Shays' Rebellion

Moderate Rep. Chris Shays' (R-CT) weekend comment to the AP that House Maj. Leader Tom DeLay should step aside is big news this a.m. -- at least in the liberal blogosphere. Since the DeLay controversies started heating up in the last few weeks, the left has been of two minds about their ideal outcome: Should they encourage DeLay's resignation post haste, or let things simmer until he becomes an issue in the '06 midterms? That question is still being asked today. On the right, the only thing approaching a major topic of discussion is John Kerry's repetition of the contention that there was voter "intimidation" on the right. Like with the left and the Shays/DeLay controversy, many comments are simple statements of "schadenfreude."

A few surprises today: the John Bolton hearing isn't generating much commentary on the left, though most oppose his nomination to the U.N.; the Terri Schiavo story is back thanks to a few developments. Also back, at least briefly, is ex-WH correspondent Jeff Gannon, who appeared at a Nat'l Press Club panel discussion on the future of journalism on 4/8.

TRACKBACKS: He Just Keeps Kerrying On Like This

Where the blog swarm is headed, who's taking part, and what they're saying:

• The AP first reported Shays' comments, and so is getting perhaps the most links. Other DeLay stories include Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) saying on ABC's "This Week" -- and picked up by the AP -- that DeLay should answer his critics, and a report by Michael Isikoff in Newsweek that quotes disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff as saying: "DeLay knew everything." Nearly all of the coverage is on the left: War and Piece; Talking Points Memo; Eschaton; Suburban Guerilla; Political Animal; MyDD. A few moderates link as well: The Moderate Voice; Centerfield.

  >> Oliver Willis: "I know this is just the White House greenlighting the idea of cutting DeLay off of the GOP's teat, but damn it I love when they shoot at each other. I'm glad that it's their side doing it for a change." Mark A.R. Kleiman tries to game possible scenarios: "[Potential Abramoff] prosecutors and their superiors [are] in a very touchy position: they don't need to be told that, if they go after DeLay but he survives, the DoJ budget is likely to suffer. This is another excellent argument, it seems to me, for expelling DeLay from the House right away." Matt Yglesias writes that in Russia, the parties behind the group paying for DeLay's trip were hardly secret, and links to the Russian Kommersant article indicating just that.

  >> A few conservatives have commented, but not many. National Review's Tim Graham writes at The Corner: "For putting his own media clip file ahead of party loyalty, many Republicans would like Shays to continue on the [ex-Rep. Michael] Forbes path: switch parties, and then lose your seat. These kinds of stories should prompt one to remember how much loving media attention and encouragement the media gave Democrats who considered voting for Clinton's impeachment: cue the crickets sound effect." RedState asks, in a headline: "Chris Shays: a fool, a prophet, or both?"

• The AP also carries the right-leaners' favorite story of the morning, titled "Kerry: Trickery Kept Voters From Polls." Linking: PoliPundit; Blogs for Bush; Slant Point; Little Green Footballs.

  >> John Hinderaker: "Does John Kerry really think that his voters are so dumb that they actually believe that members of different parties are supposed to vote on different days? News flash, John: that line about Democrats voting on Wednesday is a joke." Righty David Wissing: "Speaking of our favorite Vietnam Veteran, Polipundit points out that it has now been 70 days since he promised to sign the form SF-180. Just what is he trying to hide?"

BOLTON: Quiet. Too Quiet

New America Foundation's Steve Clemons considers Sen. Lincoln Chafee's (R-RI) considerations in voting to confirm John Bolton as U.N. Amb., and concludes: "Senator Chafee, I hope you are reaching out to informed and balanced commentators and people whom you respect in this and not just relying on thin assurances from the administration about Bolton's behavior given what you clearly know about him."

RedState: "As we noted before regarding Bolton, his most egregious offense is that he has stood up for American sovereignty, believing in America first. Bolton's criticisms of ineffectual and deleterious international institutions are, as John Kerry put it, "inexplicable." President Bush's selection of Bolton is simply unfathomable for many Democrats today. That America's ambassador to the United Nations could have deigned to assert that multilateralism for its own sake is no virtue, just does not compute with the worldview of many on the far left."

Conservative radio talker Laura Ingraham notes on her site: "AP WRITES NEGATIVE BOLTON CONFIRMATION STORY BEFORE IT EVEN HAPPENS! On the confirmation hearing for Bush UN Ambassador nominee John Bolton, the Associated Press decided why wait for the actual questioning to take place when their reporter could just write it ahead of time?." The story, apparently posted before 7:00 a.m. is here. National Review's K.J. Lopez notices the story available on another site, also before today's hearings began.

National Review's Beltway Buzz had an early copy of Bolton's remarks, and is live-blogging the hearing.

REPUBLICANS: Cracking Up Is Hard To Do

RedState lists the problems that have befallen the GOP: "An ethical crisis in the House leadership"; "Said 'leadership' freelancing ineffectually on social policy (or, the Schiavo donnybrook)"; "A conservative base, distracted by Schiavo and immigration, that doesn't value the importance of Social Security reform, and doesn't seem to want to provide the ammunition to get private accounts passed"; "A virtually unchallenged likely Democratic nominee who will enjoy absolute unity among her base, and who is making all the right moves to the center that Kerry wouldn't."

BLOGS VS. THE MSM: Pressing The Association

The New York Times gets around to covering the conservative blogosphere's objection to the AP's Pulitzer (see 4/5 Blogometer), centering on the possibility that one award-winning photo was obtained via a stringer's collaboration with insurgents. The article describes Power Line's Scott Johnson as backing down from his original criticism of the AP.

In a follow-up post at Power Line, Johnson provides details of his correspondence with reporter Mark Glassman and claims the Times misinterpreted his comments; he stands by his former comments." More: "Mr. Glassman does not note that our comments to which he refers condemning the AP's desire to let the terrorists tell their stories through photographers with connections to the terrorists derived from the AP itself." Another follow-up post quotes extensively from ex-NYT photog D. Gorton, who finds serious problems with the AP's version of events. Right-leaning Belmont Club compares the situation to another possibly staged

Moderate Dave Winer comments: "Could you imagine the Times running an article about negative letters to the editor? I can't imagine it's ever happened. But today there's an article about bloggers. ... Now the former audience is part of the news, as it should be, and not as numbers in polls, but as people with ideas. The reporters and editors always were in the story, but didn't acknowledge it, now at least they admit it's possible. This article is interesting from so many angles."

Liberal Hullabaloo disagrees with Time's Joe Klein on the impact of the Schiavo case: "In spite of the fact that three quarters of the country were repelled by the Republican grandstanding in the Schiavo circus, Klein insists, as always, that it is the Democrats who have it wrong." Duncan Black piles on: "Joe Klein is the worst pundit in Washington. And, of course, he's on 'our side.'"

Jeff Jarvis points out that MSNBC's live pope funeral web feed likely got more viewers than MSNBC's TV coverage of same, and adds: "Imagine how much bigger it would be if the audience didn't have to stream and could watch anytime, anywhere... if MSNBC provided downloads the audience could distribute."

PRESS CLUB: GannonGate -- Never Really A Tragedy, Yet Repeated As Farce

On 4/8 the Nat'l Press Club hosted a panel of bloggers and professional journalists, including the Baltimore Sun's Julie Hirschfeld Davis, CongressDaily's John Stanton, Wonkette's Ana Marie Cox, Matthew Yglesias' Matthew Yglesias, Fishbowl DC's Garrett Graff, and -- most notably -- Jeff Gannon, who seems to be sticking with that nom de plume. The event was broadcast on C-SPAN and can be watched on the web at C-SPAN.org

Lefty activist John Aravosis live-blogged the event; in the Apr. archive, you can scroll through a whole series of posts on the panel, including some transcripts and commentary to the effect that Cox "creamed" Gannon. At JeffGannon.com (no permalinks; scroll to the 4/8 post). In the 4/9 post he provides links to various round-ups.

Immediately after the discussion concluded, gay activist Mike Rogers confronted Gannon and, according to Aravosis, shouted questions at him, including: "Did you ever sleep with anyone on the White House staff prior to getting your daily pass?"

Gannon describes the scene: "Unfortunately, at the conclusion of the event, an activist created such a spectacle that I left the room immediately with security. Otherwise, I would have remained to talk to members of the press. As I was boarding an elevator to exit the building, this same person made a dash for me with unknown intent. I have been informed that he subsequently had an altercation with a member of building security and has been banned from the premises. If you saw this person's behavior, you would realize that the threats against my person, property and family have not been exaggerated."

SCHIAVO REDUX: Did This Ever Really Go Away?

Right-leaning Just One Minute devotes a lengthy post to the possible "Next Terri Schiavo," an 80-year-old woman named Mae Magourik, with links other right-leaning bloggers, from the pro-"next" Blogs for Terri and "next"-"skeptical" Megan McArdle.

Conservative Wizbang, on the Magourik story: "It's a little to early to proclaim that this story has some larger meaning, but if I had to pick one cautionary lesson that should be evident from the case it's that the much vaunted 'living will' you rushed out and drew up is only as effective as the doctors and guardian who are entrusted implement it make it."

Righty Michelle Malkin: "Last week, many conservative bloggers -- self included -- picked up on a LifeNews.com story about a new Zogby poll that showed a majority of Americans opposing removal of Terri Schiavo's feeding tube if the question was framed differently than most other MSM polls. But now some skeptical bloggers -- conservative bloggers -- are revisiting the poll and asking questions about the sponsors, poll wording, and reporting on the poll." She cites Football Fans for Truth as noting that 11 questions were asked in the Zogby poll, but only 8 questions were publicly released. Malkin says she intends to find out.

Andrew Sullivan takes issue with Power Line in a post related to the Terri Schiavo-related "GOP talking points memo." He cites Salon quoting Power Line: "What conservative would write that the case of a woman condemned to death by starvation is 'a great political issue'? Maybe such a person exists, but I doubt it.'" Sullivan cites memo writer Brian Darling's GOP credentials and writes: "Darling is, of course, an absolutely typical apparatchik of the religious right. Maybe the partisan blinders over at Powerline will eventually fray."

GAY MARRIAGE: Is The NYT Obsessed?

Based on the New York Times report, left-leaning Pandagon, comments on GOP consultant Arthur Finkelstein's just-revealed gay marriage: "Finkelstein characterizes himself as 'libertarian' -- a label that lately only means 'conservative who has personal peccadillos he doesn't wish to see outlawed.' Most 'libertarians' I know of are straight men who like to f--- without making babies and therefore oppose the wingnut push to legislate the bedroom. But they don't oppose it in any meaningful way, such as supporting politicians who, you know, agree with their beliefs about personal freedom. Instead, they keep supporting wingnuts and relying on liberals to do their fighting for their civil rights for them. And the worst part is that 'libertarians' count on liberals for a good reason--we're not going to quit fighting for their civil rights just so they can learn a valuable lesson about laying down with wingnut dogs and waking up with Jeebus fleas."

Female blogger Alarming News writes, "it looks like the NY Times will not rest until they turn men into navel-gazing, neurotic lunatics just like so much writing has made many women into retarded versions of Bridget Jones. Take this piece, about 'man-dates'. In it, the Times finds the biggest loser guys on the planet and gets them to talk about the awkwardness of hanging out alone with one of their friends in a setting not involving sports. Apparently, two men going to a museum or to dinner together is 'gay.'"

CIVILITY: Pie In The Sky

The recent spate of pie-ings of conservative speakers at college campuses has sparked some comment (see 4/8 Hotline). Now Right Wing News finds and links to the "fascistic rantings" of left-wing blog Dadahead: "Let the wingnuts scream from here till kingdom come about their free speech rights being stifled, I don't give a shit. They'll scream about it anyway. ... Give me a choice, and I'll take a dreadlocked Marxist college student dousing [Pat] Buchanan with salad dressing over Paul Begala sitting down and debating him any f---ing day of the week. At least one of them hasn't sold his soul to the devil yet. At least one of them is calling a spade a spade. ... Whatever you do, don't treat irrationality as rationality; don't treat insanity as sanity. And if flinging shit is the only way to expose the lie that says that the chimpanzee screechings of these f---tards are actually attempts at rational discourse, then so be it." He replies: "If Dadahead and others who think like him have their way, political dissent will quite literally become a food fight featuring goons hurling things at those who disagree with them. However, lowering ourselves to the level of feces flinging chimps at the zoo is not something that should be endorsed by civilized human beings, whatever their ideology may be."

IRAQ: Life Without Parole?

Captain's Quarters, on a possible deal to end the insurgent attacks in exchange for sparing Saddam Hussein from execution: "Is this a good trade? As an opponent of the death penalty under normal circumstances, I would say yes. ... It saves lives and allows the Iraqis to start healing the divisions between the past and future. It would also allow them to focus on the Zarqawi network exclusively; in fact, the Iraqis could make that a condition of their own for the ex-Ba'athists to meet: bring Zarqawi with you for Saddam. As long as Saddam never sees the light of day again, he can die like Rudolf Hess -- crazy, broken, and of old age."

Blogger Arthur Chrenkoff, whose weekly "Good News from Iraq" updates have been regular stops for conservative blog readers in recent months, updates with installment 25.

IN THE STATES: Joe Vs. The Volcano

Swing State Project posts a lengthy e-mail from a Dem official in CT, Myrna Watanabe, who writes that Sen. Joe Lieberman (D) has changed in office, that "negative feelings toward Lieberman have been growing for several years," and that with the floating of his name for a Bush Cabinet job, "many of us had had enough." She writes: "As I see it, Lieberman has a choice: he can go forward, risk not being the party's nominee, and come up with a third-party endorsement; switch to the Reps, with whom he will be very uncomfortable; do a mea culpa and take on the cloak of leadership of the Democratic Party ... or declare that it's time to retire and think of something else he can do as an elder statesman. I suspect that Joe won't like any of these choices. But he should have thought of that before he cuddled up with the Bushies." Liberal activist blog DailyKos picks up on the post, and notes that Lieberman will speak to an open forum at Yale on 4/11.

IL House GOP Leader Tom Cross's campaign blog posts an e-mail from conservative Illinois Leader pres. Dan Croft, discussing the Alan Keyes (R) SEN candidacy. Croft is quoted: "I'm the first one to admit the Keyes campaign was a disaster. ... On paper, Keyes could have provided a legit challenge, [which] lasted for about a week before Keyes embarked upon the Road to Damascus by himself. Wish that would not have happened but the easiest thing we could have done was just sit back and watch [moderate GOPer Andrea Grubb] Barthwell get beat 70-30, and then blame the moderates."

Left-leaning Blue Oregon argues for the re-legalization of fusion elections: "Do you want to make your voice heard in elections as more than a symbolic protest? Well, now that the election is over, and we're facing four more years of George Bush, it's time to talk about fusion. ... Unlike instant runoff voting (IRV), fusion voting focuses on issues rather than on candidates. Recognizing that it is hard to recruit good candidates, and harder yet to raise the money necessary to make them visible enough to win an election, fusion allows a third party to focus instead on being a party, raising issues, building constituencies for those issues, and holding candidates accountable on those issues once they are elected."

Sacramento Bee's Dan Weintraub, at the California Insider, on Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R): "Last year, Schwarzenegger managed to paint a series of modest victories as resounding successes, and that perception of success built on itself ... The question in the weeks ahead is whether voters will give Schwarzenegger credit for backing off on his controversial pension initiative or sense that his retreat signals that he is weak and ineffective, traits that are not likely to win him more support from the electorate."

Dem-leaning Washington State Political Report, on election bill there: "The final details are still being worked out between the house and senate versions. I'm not thrilled by the ID requirement. I didn't have ID the first time I voted. I wasn't interested in driving and I was too young to need to get into places restricted to people of drinking age. So what it basically amounts to is a poll tax on youth voters who don't drive." MD-based righty David Wissing disagrees: "Personally I am not going to take any Democratic sponsored 'voting reform' seriously until mandatory photo identification is part of the 'voting reform'. Any 'voting reform' that does not include that aspect is not real reform. Of course the reason Democrats do not want not photo identification is because they know Democrats would actually lose a lot more votes than they claim that they lose due to so-called Republican 'cheating'."

Unofficial grassroots blog Kentucky Republican Voice launched in early '04. It aims to be an organizing activist site, but also offers commentary on nat'l issues.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Blogging For Fun And Profit

A recent Electronic Frontier Foundation essay that's getting some attention -- from Politech and PunditGuy and others -- is "How to Blog Safely (About Work or Anything Else)". They warn: "A handful of bloggers have recently discovered that their labors of love may lead to unemployment. By some estimates, dozens of people have been fired for blogging, and the numbers are growing every day. The bad news is that in many cases, there is no legal means of redress if you've been fired for blogging. While your right to free speech is protected by the First Amendment, this protection does not shield you from the consequences of what you say. ... In states with "at will" employment laws like California, employers can fire you at any time, for any reason. And no state has laws that specifically protect bloggers from discrimination, on the job or otherwise. "

LEST WE FORGET: Super Salad Me

OxBlog's David Adesnik reviews the McDonald's salads and comments on director Morgan Spurluck's '04 film "Super Size Me": "If Spurlock really wanted to know whether there is nutritious food available at McDonald's, why does he pay so little attention to the salads? One possible answer is that very few people actually order salads when they go to McDonald's. But according to Spurlock's own rules, he was allowed to order whatever he wanted provided that he tasted each item on the menu at least once during his 30 day experiment. ... if for some bizarre reason you decide to eat three meals a day at McDonald's for an entire month, you can probably stick to the salads and not wind up any fatter than you were before."

Posted by at 12:00 PM

April 08, 2005

4/8: One Of Those "Whatever Floats Your Boat" Days

The conversation on the blogs today ranges far and wide: the ethics charges against House Maj. Leader Tom DeLay (R); coming changes at the TSA; a proposal to extend Daylight Savings Time; the once-disputed memo that came from Sen. Mel Martinez's (R) office; the controversial nomination of U.N. Amb.-designate John Bolton; these topics and more are kicking around both hemispheres of the political blogs. There is no single dominant story driving the debate this a.m., which has allowed talk about DeLay to keep coming back. Plus, as the funeral for Pope John Paul II was held earlier this morning, the blogs have been revisiting the subject once again.

TRACKBACKS: DeLiver Us From DeLay

Where the blog swarm is headed, who's taking part, and what they're saying:

• There's not much new about DeLay this a.m., but a number of bloggers are talking about him anyway, with a Slate "scorecard" of the charges and a new column by Maureen Dowd as launching points. On topic: Evangelical Outpost; BuzzMachine; Instapundit; Fargus Report; Blogging for Bayh; Cyber Conservative; Ben PAC; The Stakeholder.

  >> Ex-Bush speechwriter David Frum: his "basic conclusion" in the matter is "that the so-called DeLay scandals are essentially Abramoff scandals in which DeLay has thus far been shown to be guilty of nothing worse than negligently associating with people it would have been better for him not to know."

  >> Prof Stephen Bainbridge: "When even a yellow dog Republican like me thinks the Congressional GOP majority is starting to ... look a lot like the bad old Jim Wright-era Democrat Congress, you know folks like Tom DeLay are in big trouble."

  >> Liberal Tapped, on an Abramoff-related trip to Burma including GOPers DeLay, House Speaker Denny Hastert, then-Rep. Bill Paxon and Rep. Deborah Pryce: "Amazing how every trip DeLay seems to have taken also put him on the wrong side of some human rights, freedom, and democracy issue. ABC News reported this morning that DeLay also travelled to Saipan with his family in late 1997"

• One popular item this morning is the Washington Post's treatment on the apparent dismantling of the TSA. For the most part, it's the small-government conservatives commenting. Linking: Musings from the Back Room; First State Pundit; Byrne's Marketview; Instapundit; Doug Petch.

  >> Typifying the enthusiasm is right-leaning Outside the Beltway: "The idea that airport security would get better when handled by government employees was always dubious. People who drew analogies to law enforcement, arguing that we would never privatize the FBI, missed the point. Screening people's bags at airports is a tedious, thankless task. The TSA was never going to draw the caliber of people that the FBI does."

  >> But Michelle Malkin is more cautious: "You've probably already heard -- and cheered: The [TSA] is reportedly now "being slated for dismantling." Sounds more dramatic than it is." Noting that Brookings scholar Paul Light says "TSA, at the end of the day, is going to look more like the Postal Service," Malkin adds: "In other words: At the end of the day, we'll still be stuck with it."

  >> Left-leaning Just a Bump in the Beltway: "Every place I've worked that had this kind of turnover was a s--tty place to work, and that caused the turnover. Maybe the Bush admin isn't such a hot place to work?"

• Also happening: The Washington Post's "GOP Fracturing Over Power Of Judiciary," based in part on the 11th Circuit's refusal to reconsider the Terri Schiavo case, as well as a Wall Street Journal poll showing trouble for GOPers. Linking to one or both: Hugh Hewitt; Kesher Talk; Steve Soto; Daily Kos.

  >> Liberal Tapped: "41 percent of Republicans oppose pulling the trigger on the nuclear option. Remind me again, what reason do we have to think that the Republican conference actually is united behind an action that will guarantee the shutdown of the Senate and that contravenes the wishes of nearly half of their own party's ranks?"

  >> RedState's ConfirmThem: "It's bad enough to confront these 45 Democrats in their never ending obstructionism, but when members of your own party contribute to the problem through their spinelessness and/or infatuation with sucking up to the media and the other side, then the situation becomes all the more intolerable."

  >> Centrist law prof Ann Althouse: "[T]he problem wasn't the unconstitutionality of the statute, but the text of the statute, which I believe was carefully written by drafters who knew where the constitutional pitfalls were. Consequently, they did not produce a text that "ordered" the federal courts to do anywhere near as much as the grandstanders in Congress tried to make us think they did. I'm only writing about this again because the WaPo is perpetuating a misconception."

• And as the New York Times reports, "60 Minutes II" -- tarnished in the Rathergate/Memogate scandal in 9/04 -- has won a Peabody for its reporting on the Abu Ghraib scandal. The awards went to then-producer Mary Mapes and correspondent Dan Rather, two central figures in the documents flap. Linking: Kevin Aylward; A blog doesn't need a clever name; Slublog; The Dead Pool.

  >> Libertarian Ed Driscoll sums up plenty of the reaction: "Somebody needs to tell those wacky pranksters at the New York Times that April Fools Day is over. They have a hilarious piece on 60 Minutes II (the wonderful folks who brought you RatherGate) winning a Peabody Award! The photo of [fellow Peabody recipient] Jon Stewart is an obvious tip-off that the Times is in cahoots with Comedy Central. Oh wait, it's real?! Getouttahere!"

BOLTON: Hey, At Least It's Not Michael Bolton

Tapped's Dave Meyer: "Another example of Bolton's weakness should be mentioned: Bolton has led the flaccid administration reaction to dealing with the A.Q. Khan proliferation network, which allegedly sold "step-by-step directions for making crucial parts of a [nuclear] bomb."

National Review's Beltway Buzz has a number of posts defending Bolton.

JUDGES: Go Ahead, Make Our Day

At Volokh Conspiracy, right-leaning prof Jim Lindgren advertises a WSJ op-ed he co-wrote "advocating 18 year term limits for Supreme Court Justices": "From 1789 until 1970, Supreme Court justices served an average of 14.9 years. The justices who have stepped down since 1970, however, have served an average of 25.6 years."

Some liberal bloggers are openly hoping that the GOP invokes the nuclear option; others offer new negotiating points. Matt Yglesias links around.

THE POPE: The Last Hurrah

Jeff Jarvis: "Is it just because I'm an American WASP that I can't get used to applause and cheers at a funeral? Are we the only ones who are silent and solemn at death? It's a cultural thing."

Conservative Galley Slaves: "If John Paul II had done everything exactly the same way during his papacy but had embraced gay marriage, do you think Andrew Sullivan would still consider him a 'failure'?"

Lefty Pandagon: "CNN's news coverage the past week: POOOOOOOOOOOOOPE JackCaffertyStockMarket POOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPE MichaelJackson POOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPE"

Daily Howler: "The Catholicization of NBC News was on remarkable display last night as the network's cable channel, MSNBC, swept aside all actual news to sing hymns to John Paul II. On our cable system, we already had a Catholic channel -- EWTN -- as is completely appropriate. What isn't appropriate is NBC's effort to turn its cable 'news' channel into a branch of its executives' piety."

Ex-Reagan aide Lyn Nofziger uses the moment to criticize ex-Pres. Clinton: "Like many, even most protestants, I was an admirer of Pope John Paul II and I think he will go down in history not only as a great pope but also as a great man. Few men have had as much of an effect for good on their times as this pope. That is why I find former president Bill Clinton's belittling remarks about him especially contemptible."

Hugh Hewitt posts a "long, and extraordinary e-mail from a priest in Rome, Father Peter Mitchell, forwarded to me from one of his friends."

It's a Pope-pourri of posts at The Corner.

DEMOCRATS: Let My Progressives Go

DailyKos diarist Bob Brigham: "Last month Kos had to step in to get the DLC to honor the wishes of Senator Barack Obama and remove him from their list ... Kos asked: 'Anyone else who seems out of place on the list? Anyone else we can peel off this list?'" SF Mayor Gavin Newsom "was still listed as a county supervisor even though Al From claimed credit for his 2003 election. I noticed that Tim Ryan was listed as a state senator even though he is in his second term in congress. ... I expected to come back in a month or so to see the list cleaned up. What I found was an exodus. Dozens of names have been scrubbed from the list."In addition to Obama and Ryan, among the many state lawmakers, "the DLC is no longer taking credit for": CA Treas./GOV candidate Phil Angelides, Sen. Ken Salazar (CO), ex-Tallahassee mayor/possible GOV candidate Scott Maddox, and AZ Gov. Janet Napolitano.

DLC's Marshall Wittman, blogging at the Bull Moose Blog, on the Pew poll of Howard Dean's WH supporters: "The Moose notes that there is now persuasive evidence that Deaniacs were suffering under the severe delusion that they represented the 'Democratic wing of the Democratic Party.'"

BLOGS VS. THE MSM: Little Memo's Adventures In Blogland

Kevin Drum: "Must .... resist .... writing .... again .... about .... Schiavo .... "talking points" .... memo .... But I can't. It's unbelievable that Mickey Kaus and Power Line and the rest of the usual suspects are still baying for reporter Mike Allen's blood. At most he's guilty of modestly sloppy wording in the first draft of his initial piece about the memo a week ago, a mistake that he quickly corrected. If only the conservative blogosphere were so prone to self-correction." Talking Points Memo (whose name long predates this kerfuffle) also keeps the story alive for another day.

Right-leaning John Cole tells his fellow conservatives: "The absurd defenses about the 'memo' and the attacks on the reporter have now reached a pinnacle of absurdity that is difficult to achieve -- even in Washington. A Republican aide, working for a Republican Senator, wrote the memo. Whether it was inept or incompetent or riddled with typos is pointless. A Republican wrote it."

Power Line takes issue with a Christian Science Monitor report on last weekend's attack on Abu Ghraib: "The attack on Abu Ghraib was 'well-organized' and 'better executed'? It was a disaster for the terrorists. But note how the CSM spins the casualty numbers: while [CBS's James] Robbins notes that no Americans were killed and only seven injured more than slightly, while the attackers suffered ten dead (by their own admission) and a casualty rate in excess of 50%, the CSM never mentions the dead or wounded terrorists, and refers to 12 injured prisoners, as though the purpose of the terrorists' raid had been to shoot the prisoners, rather than liberate them."

BLOGS VS. THE WORLD: Canadian Misty-Eyed

Right-leaning Captains Quarters: "Now that the publication ban has been lifted, at least [part of the testimony], the Canadian media have taken over the role of presenting the information that should have been available to Canadians all along. ... I wanted to make sure that I offered my thanks to all of the new readers who have been so kind during the week, and a big hat tip to everyone who linked to me, especially the Canadian bloggers who risked a contempt charge to do so. Never let it be said that Canadians lack the courage of their convictions. If the publication ban stays in effect for [other testimony] and I find a source who can report it, CQ will post the material as soon as it becomes available."

Damian Penny: "I think it's safe enough to link to Captain Ed's much-blogged-about posts on the subject, which -- based on my admittedly brief comparison -- appear to have been quite accurate all along."

The Nation's David Corn, recently disinvited to speak at a small AR univ. assumedly because of his left-leaning political views, reports at his personal blog that conservative activist David Horowitz -- well-known for criticizing colleges as having a virtual blacklist against right-leaning professors -- has joined his side of the fight. Corn: "Oh, to have Horowitz on my side. What a pleasant surprise."

CIVILITY: I Like Pie

Lefty economist Max Sawicky: "Lately a pack of right-wingers have had pies or other food thrown at them during speeches. Pat Buchanan, David Horowitz, Ann Coulter, and Bill Kristol. I doubt any readers of this site sympathize with the act, though we can all identify with the thought. But the bottom line is, this is assault. If it was me and I was able, I'd feel perfectly justified in kicking the ass of anyone who trespassed against me. Besides violating norms of civil discourse, it is also stupid. Right now, the other side has more pies, not to mention other implements. It's only a matter of time before left speakers get the same treatment, or worse. The original pieman was a fellow named Aron Kay who, back in the day, pied E. Howard Hunt. I'd say that was enough. As Norman Mailer used to say, 'Once a philosopher, twice a pervert.' There are better perversions. Plus it's a waste of food."

Lefty Oliver Willis on righty Michelle Malkin's hate mail: "Look, Malkin shouldn't be called names like this, but it would behoove her not to automatically assume anyone darker than Michael Jackson is an agent of Al Qaeda or that anyone to the left of Dick Cheney is the antichrist. But she really should shut up."

DAYLIGHT SAVINGS: Let There Be More Light

Political Animal, on the cong. bill under consideration: "I'm a firm fan of this idea -- although, unfortunately, I can't pretend it's for noble energy conserving reasons. I just like having more daylight at the end of the day and I don't care much about it in the morning. But here's the thing: this has been proposed as an amendment to the Bush administration's latest attempt at a major energy bill. I assume this bill is every bit as horrible as their last one, which failed last year, and that means I'm morally obligated to oppose it. Bummer."

Right-leaning RedState: "How sad is it that Congress is arrogant enough to think it can add 'more daylight' to a twenty-four hour day. Note to Congress: You are not God. I fail to see how making us get up in the dark and go to bed in the light really helps anyone other than store owners who think shoppers will come out later if the sun is up later. It certainly does nothing for the hubris of Congress when Congressmen seriously think they can regulate the sun."

IN THE STATES: Temple Of Doom

At his blog, top MO Dem consultant Roy Temple applies psychological theories to MO Gov. Matt Blunt's (R) signature: "Note the extreme left slant. According to handwriting analysis sources, a severe left slant suggests a troubled personality. According to Psychology Today, a pronounced left slant suggests: 'The writer is holding back his or her true emotions and may be repressed in a significant way.'"

The AP reports that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-CA) is abandoning his plan to introduce private accounts to the state's pension program. Moderate Joe Gandelman: "Pulling back the pension plan was an exceptionally wise idea -- which shows that A.S. thinks in longterm strategical terms; he can use his political capital -- which he still has -- for his other reform measures later. And you better bet he will." Liberal MyDD: "It is a major defeat, and it shows he is vulnerable." Includes links to a poll by old Hotline friend/Dem adviser Phil Trounstine showing increasing public skepticism of Schwarzenegger: "Not an easy pickup, but clearly a possible pickup." Lefty Josh Marshall: "It's sort of like with Bush and Arnold and dope. They both did it; but Arnold just comes out and says it." Headline at conservative Professor Bainbridge: "Arnold Wimps Out."

MISCELLANY: Our Way Or Ridgeway

Iraq pessimist Juan Cole: "Jalal Talabani appears to have had a senior moment of some magnitude. In the course of announcing that Ibrahim Jaafari will be Iraq's new prime minister, he says he suffered a memory lapse and had to leave the podium so an aide could remind him of Jaafari's name. The superstitious took it as an ill omen."

Patrick Ruffini notices that the Village Voice's James Ridgeway was duped by the Hotline's April Fools Day edition.

MN humor writer James Lileks explores why there's a "'legendary' game designer" that no one has ever heard of advertising on popular blogs via BlogAds. Lileks: "As others have noted, it's probably a viral marketing campaign," for Audi. More: "We're being had, but it's all in fun. In that 'not really very much fun at all' sort of way."

Crooked Timber considers the eeriness of spam in the comment sections of blogs: "Do you know what's interesting about comment spam? Nothing, of course. But consider this. No piece of comment spam has ever been able to mimic a human convincingly. It tries, but comment spam is like the aliens among us. They look like us, dress like us ... but they also eat the houseplants."

Shockingly, "Ace" from Ace of Spades HQ has not retired: "If it seemed like this 'prank' wasn't very well thought-out and sort of slapdash -- well, it wasn't thought out, and it was slapdash."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Odd Friends

Liberal Mark A.R. Kleiman, on DeLay: "DeLay was on Milosevic's side against Bill Clinton," even undertaking an "extraordinary maneuver ... to send an encouraging message to the enemy while our men and women in uniform were in harm's way, by promising Clinton a resolution of support for the air war and then arranging for it to come to the floor and fail. ... And now we know ... that DeLay was doing all of this as the beneficiary of largesse from the Russian security services. Taking an expensive vacation at the expense of the military of a foreign power to support America's enemies probably doesn't amount to treason under the Constitutional definition, but it comes close."

LEST WE FORGET: You Like Me, You Really Like Me

Conservative La Shawn Barber asks her readers to list their top 5 most overrated blogs, and top 5 most underrated blogs -- and the comments are many. Among those frequently cited as overrated: Andrew Sullivan, Instapundit, Daily Kos, Oliver Willis, and Wonkette. The choices for underrated are more diverse, but the blogger most often cited: La Shawn Barber.

Posted by at 12:09 PM

April 07, 2005

4/7: One Memo To Rule Them All

Yesterday the blogosphere was split along partisan lines, with the left focusing on twin MSM stories about Maj. Leader Tom DeLay and the right covering a variety of stories of lesser interest to national politics. Today it's just the opposite: there is near unanimity on the news of the day: the apparent crumbling of

As we wrote in this space yesterday, the memo story died peacefully last week without much fuss. The fight over Terri Schiavo's life, while contentious and ubiquitous in recent weeks, has passed along with her. This memo is one of her immediate political legacies, and while it we'd expect it to be off everyone's radar screens by the end of the week, today it's all anyone can talk about.

Recap: When the memo -- click here to see it as a JPG -- surfaced, the left cited it as an example of GOPers playing politics with the Schiavo episode -- and apparently poorly, as the issue doesn't seem to have been a "great political issue" (a line from the memo) for them. The coverage seemed to indicate it was a widely-distributed high-level memo among GOP senators.

The right noted that the memo cited the wrong Senate bill and misspelled Schiavo's name, and thus didn't seem to them plausible as an actual Senate memo. A few bloggers kept the story alive, and yesterday the Washington Times splashed front-page, above the fold: "Was the Schiavo memo a fake?" The right crowed, the left mostly ignored it. But today's revelation (see the "Congress" story elsewhere in this Hotline) that it originated from the office of Sen. Mel Martinez (R-FL) made it the issue of the moment. The left is having a good laugh at the conservative bloggers' expense, while the right concedes the main point but sticks with a few sub-arguments.

In particular: The Washington Post's Mike Allen denied having reported it as distributed by "party leaders," but conservative bloggers (along with centrist Mickey Kaus) pointed out that in fact a version of the story had gone out over the wire to other papers with that phrase in it. The Post's Howard Kurtz followed this up and more or less concurred. Today the right blogosphere sees Kurtz as vindicated and Allen owing a correction; the left blogosphere sees the opposite.

TRACKBACKS: Note To Self -- Stop Writing Memos

Where the blog swarm is headed, who's taking part, and what they're saying:

• The most popular version of the story is the typically well-linked Washington Post, which is fitting, because the author is the Mike Allen. Other treatments come from the AP and New York Times. Anybody who's anybody links: Obsidian Wings; Althouse; Jeralyn Merritt; The Moderate Voice; Hit and Run; Skippy The Bush Kangaroo; Think Progress; Betsy's Page; The Spoons Experience; Captain's Quarters; Instapundit; Little Green Footballs; Ace of Spades HQ; Eschaton; America Blog; MyDD; Wizbang.

  >> A fairly representative post from the left comes from Kevin Drum: "Martinez has fired the errant staffer, calling the memo 'stupid.' With that, I hope that Power Line and Hugh Hewitt and Michelle Malkin and the rest of the crew trying relive the glory days of Rathergate will take his lead and just STFU. Enough."

  >> A fairly representative post from the right comes from National Review's TKS assigns "half a point to the mainstream media, half a point to the bloggers," and adds: "In this blogging world, sometimes you're going to find a superscript 'th'. And sometimes you're going to find a muddier situation, in which a foolish GOP staffer tried to play Karl Rove to the whole party without using spellcheck or checking bill numbers."

  More below.

BLOGS VS. THE MSM: That's the Way The Controversy Crumbles

Daily Kos: "The wingnutosphere spent the last few weeks screaming bloody murder about the memo (which frankly I had forgotten about), claiming it was some sinister Democratic plot. They wanted to make a big deal about it, so let's make sure we oblige."

National Review's Jonah Goldberg, at The Corner: "I think it's interesting that Martinez says he never read the memo but managed to pass it to Tom Harkin. That's possible, but it might be a bit of a lawyerly dodge given that when Chris Wallace asked him about the memo on March 20th, on Fox News Sunday, he said he'd never saw it before." And from a reader e-mail posted to The Corner: "Even if Senator Martinez was handing out the memo on the steps of the Capitol to every Senator and citizen that passed by, you could hardly say that the 3 month first time elected Senator equalled 'Republican leaders.'"

"Armando" at DailyKos castigates the Post's Kurtz as a "shill" for his reporting on Allen's apparent mishandling of the memo. So does Oliver Willis, who adds: "Shut up Hinderaker. Shut up Malkin. Shut up "Comisar". Shut up. Shut up. Shut up. ... I am laughing so hard now. So. Damn. Hard. ... Will the last honest right-winger please turn out the lights?"

But Slate's Mickey Kaus (scroll to "Non-fake but inaccurate!" disagrees on the Kurtz/Allen point: "The whole 'memo' fuss, as played up by WaPo and ABC's Linda Douglass, was wildly overdone even if the memo was a GOP leadership document -- as if senators never consider what is a good political issue, as if that's a no-no in a democracy." More: "But certainly whatever legitimate valence Allen's 'memo' story had depended almost entirely on the impression that the memo revealed and represented the strategy of the GOP leaders who pushed the Schiavo bill. If all that was involved was a staff memo Martinez gave to Harkin, Allen's story was way out of whack."

Horse's Ass: "I've said it before and I'll say again: us bloggers ... we have an agenda. And anybody who naively relies on the blogosphere for their news, because they somehow believe we are more accurate, honest and unbiased ... is a f---ing idiot. We're not better than the mainstream media ... we're just different."

Power Line analyzes previous and current reporting on the memo and concludes that the full story has not yet been told. Michelle Malkin prints excerpts from hate mail.

DELAY: Why's Nobody Picking On Me?

The American Prospect's Garance Franke-Ruta: "He should have known: 1997 was a banner year for stories on congressional junkets, and many members of Congress were stepping back their overseas travel at that time or had begun to more closely scrutinize foreign trip offers out of concern for adverse publicity."

ELECTIONS: Hicksville

Conservative John Hawkins: "The Republicans who've being politically penny wise and pound foolish on illegal immigration had better hope that Democrats like Hillary and [VA Gov. Mark] Warner who're getting tough on illegals are just exceptions to the rule instead of the start of a trend because this is an issue that could cost the GOP a lot of elections if the Democrats are smart enough to figure it out."

Colorado Pols notes, "Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper is the newest victim of a spontaneous uprising of Grassroots Activists united in only one thing: the election of our next Governor." From an "anonymous email being circulated": "Colorado needs to elect a Democrat as governor in 2006. And we think John Hickenlooper is the man for the job." Writes Colorado Pols: "I can't wait to get my 'Draft Hick' lapel button."

BLOGS VS. THE MSM: Fledgling Ventures

Liberal Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo sneaks a few details on a new site he's about to launch: "It has a few different components. But the main one is a new group blog with a few more than a dozen individual contributors. ... As you might expect, the focus of conversation will be politics and current affairs, but neither narrowly nor exclusively. We're also hoping for lively exchanges about the arts, literature, religion and the sciences. We're still putting together the list of contributors. And we'll be bringing you more on that in the coming days. But the list of those who've already signed on includes Todd Gitlin, Ed Kilgore, Mike Lind and Judith Shulevitz, among others"

New from blog tycoon Nick Denton is Sploid, a tabloid-like competitor to the Drudge Report. Jeff Jarvis, who was clued in ahead of time: "It delivers the headlines worth talking about, like Drudge. But it looks better -- like a cheesy German tabloid. And it puts the top news on top, where it should be. And it won't spare Drudge's sacred cows." Also discussing it: Instapundit; Washington Canard; Magnetic Media Field.

MISCELLANY: Today It's All Miscellany

Via Captain's Quarters, news that didn't get a lot of play yesterday: Saddam Hussein had to watch Iraqi Kurd Jalal Talabani be elected president on a live closed-circuit feed, and was "clearly upset." Law prof Ann Althouse: "Beautiful!"

Liberal MyDD's Chris Bowers assesses the "Schiavo backlash" against Pres. Bush and the GOP suggested by Gallup's latest poll and gushes: "Oh baby. This is just so great I have a difficult time being more articulate."

Noting Bush's poor poll numbers plus Tony Blair's re-election fight, liberal UMich prof Juan Cole asks: "Could Iraq be the undoing of both major political parties that backed the war in the West?"

Northwestern law prof. James Lindgren of Volokh Conspiracy relates a story from his experience in uncovering the Michael Bellesiles gun-records scandal (very big in the blogosphere a couple years back) and notes the Wonkette angle: blogger Ana Marie Cox at the time was a Chronicle of Higher Education reporter looking into allegations of forged/faulty documentation by Bellesiles, but was removed from the story once it seemed she was about to write an anti-Bellesiles piece.

"R. Musil" from Man Without Qualities launches into a lengthy rebuttal of Christopher Hitchens' post-mortem Pope-criticism.

Also Pope-related and noted in the blogs is an article in the Weekly Standard on an overlooked story that the USSR ordered the murder of John Paul II in 1981. Power Line links, as does schoolteacher Betsy Newmark.

GOPbloggers interviews RNC chair Ken Mehlman.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Why The Filibuster Helps The GOP

TNR's Noam Scheiber, uncredited as always at &c: Today the White House can credibly argue that any conservative activist bent on overturning Roe v. Wade would be filibustered, so there's no point in nominating one. (Just as Bush recently pleaded to conservative evangelical leaders that there's no point in pushing an anti-gay marriage amendment since the votes in the Senate aren't there.) Absent the filibuster excuse, Bush would have a much harder time resisting demands from his base that he nominate that kind of candidate."

LEST WE FORGET: You're Not My Real Daddy!

Jim Treacher writes his own captions and dialogue for an otherwise normal-seeming comic strip and titles it "The Dame Wore Clothing." There are many more attempts at captioning the same strip available here.

Posted by at 12:12 PM

April 06, 2005

4/6: Please Hammer Don't Hurt Em

This a.m. the New York Times and Washington Post both front stories about Maj. Leader Tom DeLay (R). The Times reports that DeLay's wife and daughter received "unusually generous" compensation for campaign work; the Post reports that a '97 DeLay trip to Russia was underwritten by lobbyists through a "mysterious" Bahamian shell company. Both are getting heavy play: it's a big deal to the left blogosphere, who don't like DeLay and have been eagerly watching the drip, drip of ethics charges against him.

The conservative blogs have no overriding political story today. Among the discussions taking place: Captains Quarters' tangle with Canadian censorship law, the passing of novelist Saul Bellow, and widening speculation that a "GOP talking points memo" (which supposedly had GOP leaders claiming the Terri Schiavo case was good politics) is in fact a fraud. The latter is partly fueled by a Washington Times report, an instance of blogs keeping a story alive long enough for the MSM to take a second look.

One story drawing outrage from both sides is a comment by Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R) to the effect that he would like to use the criminal rather than regulatory process for dealing with "indecency" on cable and the airwaves. Other than that -- and some follow-up on Sen. John Cornyn's (R) controversial remarks on judicial activism -- there isn't much overlap today. The right isn't especially animated about the DeLay stories, and few so far have vigorously defend him. Meanwhile, the left isn't much interested in the stories on the right. As for the memo, it failed to generate much heat when it first surfaced; the left dismissed it then and seems barely aware of it today.

TRACKBACKS: Sense(nbrennner)less Crimes

Where the blog swarm is headed, who's taking part, and what they're saying:

• Lefties linking to one or both of the DeLay stories: Eschaton; Political Animal; MyDD; Hullabaloo; TalkLeft; DailyKos; Oliver Willis; Peking Duck.
  

  Righties linking to one or both: Captain's Quarters; RedState.

  >> Liberal Duncan Black notes that the Washington Post's sources included "those involved in planning DeLay's trip," and adds: "The story here isn't so much that DeLay's about to go down, it's that obviously he's being knifed by people on his own side ... Anyway, should've been obvious something like this was coming. Even the WSJ editorial board sent out a telegraph about a week ago." Josh Marshall makes a similar point. Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum: "Maybe so. Perhaps they've figured out that they'd rather take their lumps now than during an election year." IL-based ArchPundit: "The question appears to me to be how hard does he fight and who does he take down with him. He's a mean bastard, and I'm certain he has a scorched earth plan for those who turn on him in this case. Given the other scandals, he won't be the only one touched."

  >> At the conservative Beltway Buzz, Eric Pfeiffer writes that the Times "failed to mention two critical points in their story. First and foremost, the practice of paying family members to work on campaigns is not illegal. Several members of both parties do so. Secondly ... Harry Reid has done the same thing and receives zero mention in the story, as have House members Jesse Jackson Jr., Bart Stupak and Gene Taylor, all Democrats."

• A Hollywood Reporter story on statements by Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R) that "criminal prosecution" would be a "more efficient way" to handle indecency on cable, has caught plenty of attention. Among the linkers: Jeff Jarvis; The Agitator; The Spoons Experience; TalkLeft.

  >> Liberal Tapped: "Quite the crackdown, huh? Maybe, but maybe not." Liberal orgs. "have been advocating something called a la carte cable" which would force cable providers "to allow customers to pick exactly which channels they want to subscribe to and only pay for those stations, rather than bundling whole big groups of channels together. That's bad for cable broadcasters ... Sensenbrenner's stance ... strikes me as a neat trick to keep the Christian/business GOP coalition together at one of its stress points."

  >> Right Wing News: Sensenbrenner "must not have the word 'overkill' in his vocabulary ... Imagine someone actually being sent to jail for making a "lewd" comment on TV that other Americans on the internet or in bars, sports arenas, or around the water cooler could say with impunity ... Sensenbrenner & company have been downhill skiing on the slippery slope of indecency regulations and it's time they were told to brake hard."

  >> The lone pro-Sensenbrenner argument comes from Neo-Libertarian, who criticizes Jarvis' take: " It's already a criminal offense, it's just that right now the FCC handles it instead of the criminal courts. ... But Jeff Jarvis clearly only saw 'criminal' and 'court' and assumed Sensenbrenner wanted to increase the punishment to include imprisonment. Sensenbrenner never said anything about jail time in any of the articles I've read on the subject. ... Moreover, it would decrease the power of the FCC. Sounds pretty cool to me."

• A front page Washington Times survey puts 55 GOP sens. on the record as saying "they have never seen" the Schiavo memo, and that it "was not crafted or distributed by him or her." Linking: Betsy Newmark; Mudville Gazette; Joe's Dartblog; PowerPundit

  >> Conservative Power Line: "The Washington Post isn't the perpetrator of the underlying offense here, but it is in the middle of its own Watergate-style cover-up. Who will guard the guardians?"

JUDGES: Cornyn Dogged

The Corner posts text of a 4/5 floor address by Cornyn, clarifying his earlier remarks, in which he says: "As a former judge myself for 13 years, who has a number of close personal friends who still serve on the bench today, I am outraged by recent acts of courthouse violence. I certainly hope that no one will construe my remarks on Monday otherwise. Considered in context, I don't think a reasonable listener or reader could."

Centrist Andrew Sullivan: "Cornyn retracts. Good for him. Just ignore the blather about being taken out of context. He wasn't. He contributed to anti-judicial emotionalism; and he has retracted his inflammatory remarks."

Liberal Gadflyer: "Here's Cornyn's world: he will defend to the death the right to own a gun. When a judge's husband and mother are murdered with a gun in the hands of a mentally disturbed individual, it's because the murderer was frustrated with the politically motivated decisions of the judge. What should we control, according to Cornyn? Not guns. 'Activist judges.'" BeldarBlog defends him: "As the chief law enforcement officer of the State of Texas, he certainly had no record of encouraging lawlessness. He has no history of demagoguery. Lumping him in with nuts at either the left or right extremes simply isn't justified based on his past record. He's neither a Tom DeLay nor a Robert Byrd."

CAP's ThinkProgress hosts video of Cornyn's Senate floor speech.

Tangentially, DLC's Marshall Wittman "wonders why the elephant is in such a state about confirming conservative judges after the Schiavo episode. After all, wasn't it conservative judges that ruled against another review of the case defying the wishes of the Republican Congress? It seems that the Delay crowd has a fundamental beef with Federalist 78 and Marbury v. Madison."

LEFT VS. RIGHT: Who's Better?

David Brooks' 4/5 New York Times column on the diversity of ideas on the right compared to the left is much-discussed. Brooks writes: "The major conservative magazines -- The Weekly Standard, National Review, Reason, The American Conservative, The National Interest, Commentary -- agree on almost nothing." Guest-blogging at &c., New Republic's Jon Chait would add the Wall Street Journal and Washington Times editorial pages, and disagrees: "Even if you follow Brooks's bizarre definition and include Reason and The American Conservative, you'll get some dissent on judicial nominations and the war and a less worshipful view of Bush as a man. But you'll still have basic agreement on all the major domestic policy questions."

But liberal Mark Schmitt is inclined to agree with Brooks: "Many of those who want to build up the 'progressive intellectual infrastructure' see the right-wing institutions ... as simply part of a disciplined message infrastructure." But in fact "those institutions are loci of great internal debate. Does that debate then lead to ideological clarity, which can be the basis for greater partisan unity later? Absolutely."

Also linking: The left-leaning Crooked Timber, right-leaning Volokh Conspiracy, and libertarian Hit and Run.

Meanwhile, Chait and National Review's Jonah Goldberg wrap up their argument about left-right superiority at the NR/TNR joint venture OpinionDuel.com.

BLOGS VS. THE WORLD: Aye Aye, Captain

The Canadian ban (see the 4/5 Blogometer) of conservative Captains Quarters -- run by MN blogger Ed Morrissey -- gets MSM legitimization from the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz (albeit in his web column). Following the story over multiple posts has been right-leaning Instapundit (as he would say, just keep scrolling), focusing not just on the issue of Captain's Quarters' fight with Canada but also the Canadian "publication ban." Most following the story fall on the right-hand side of the blog world: Red State; Winds of Change; Patrick Ruffini; Michael Greenspan. But a few liberals are following as well: Yowling from the Fencepost.

The Nation's David Corn writes in his online column and at his personal blog that he was disinvited from speaking at a 2-year college in Northern AR, supposedly because of "an ad for anti-Bush gear." Asks Corn: "Am I being too sensitive if I suspect politics is afoot and that the administration of a school located deep in Red State territory pulled the plug on my appearance because of my views?"

BLOGS VS. THE MSM: The Changing Newspaper?

Personal Democracy Forum points out SC's Bluffton Today which has "user generated material from the get-go, including free classifieds. It comes from an established media company, and the site looks terrific. ... Everyone gets a blog. Not just staffers, but everyone in the community. LeMonde (France) and the Mail and Guardian (South Africa) are doing this, too. ... This is big news, folks."

IN THE STATES: Welcome To Food City!

Commonwealth Conservative posts pictures of a NASCAR stock car with a sign for VA AG Jerry Kilgore's (R) GOV campaign, and later clarifies: "The Jerry Kilgore campaign for Governor did NOT pay for that. It was a surprise gesture made by Food City -- sponsors of the Bristol race, the 'Food City 500.'"

OBIT: Saul Of The Earth

The New York Times obit for author Bellow is the starting point for a number of tributes, mostly on the starboard side of the blogosphere. John J. Miller writes at The Corner: "The NYT obituary chides him for once asking 'Who is the Tolstoy of the Zulus? The Proust of the Papuans?' Notably, it is a question that neither the NYT nor anybody as far as I know ever has answered adequately." Others paying tribute: Power Line; Roger L. Simon; Bloggledygook; Brothers Judd; Ann Althouse.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY

Libertarian Julian Sanchez considers the recent buzz around a university study showing universities have moved left in recent decades. Sanchez finds the numbers at first "quite implausible: It claims that the proportion of self-identified left or liberal profs has risen from 39 to 72 percent from 1984 to 1999 while the proportion of right or conservative profs dropped from 34 to 15 percent." Sanchez theorizes, "it's probably the shift within academia that's most likely to have produced this sort of effect on perception. In 1984, 'left' didn't mean, say, Cass Sunstein. It meant Michel Foucault and hardcore Marxists."

LEST WE FORGET

Lefty "Billmon" at Whiskey Bar parodies TV's all-Pope-all-the-time coverage by assembling a fake TV schedule, including "Soft Balls With Chris Matthews": "Chris interviews a world-famous expert on Catholicism -- himself -- and a highly respected leader of the American Catholic community -- also himself -- on the potential impact of John Paul II's death on the 2012 presidential race. (Warning: extreme footage of Hillary Rodham Clinton) (In monologue)

Posted by at 12:14 PM

April 05, 2005

4/5: Children Of The Cornyn

Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) is getting a taste of the new media this a.m., as the left-wing blogosphere buzzes over a floor speech he made on 4/4 in which he said political violence against judges, while "'certainly without any justification,'" are "may be linked to public anger over judges who make politically charged decisions without being held accountable." Virtually every left-of-center blogger is all over this.

The second-largest story of the day is on the conservative blogs, which are questioning the Pulitzer selection for Breaking News Photography going to the AP. In this case, it's an older story returning to the fore -- in 12/04, many in the blogosphere asked if an AP photographer who captured a muderr was tipped off ahead of time by the terrorists. The photo appears again on the Pulitzer site.

Falling off the radar almost entirely: The Pope. Most everyone who's had a tribute in them has made it already. House Maj. Tom DeLay got something of a reprieve, but not entirely, thanks to comments by VP Cheney that some see as a rebuke. And for the first time in a few days, Social Security appears to be making a comeback.

TRACKBACKS: AP Stands For Appalling Pulitzer?

Where the blog swarm is headed, who's taking part, and what they're saying:

• The Washington Post report on the Cornyn speech is especially popular. Linking: Obsidian Wings; Happy Puppy Furry Story Time; Stygius; Real Art; Political Animal; Matthew Yglesias; MyDD; Pandagon. DailyKos has a round-up of links to commentary about this, including a longish post at the blog of Rep. John Conyers (D-MI). The DSCC piles on, sending out to reporters links not only to MSM sources but to blogs, including Conyers, The Left Coaster and AmericaBlog. Eschaton has devoted most of the day to this.

  >> Liberal Yale prof Jack Balkin: "In fact, as the Post story explains, violence against judges has generally involved highly unstable people who bear personal grudges against particular decisions against them. It's difficult to see why Cornyn would make so asinine a comment if he had not intended to send the message that federal judges should watch what they do from now on."

  >> Few on the right have yet to respond, but RedState has: "Cornyn's musing, while impolitic, is hardly the danger to Constitutional governance that any of the prior examples were. He's not even endorsing the rhetoric, reasoning, nor actions in question -- indeed, he explicitly characterizes them as 'without justification.' One might therefore expect that his monologue would have all the moral content (if not intellectual content) of a professor hypothesizing on the motivations of al Qaeda."

• A number of blogs take issue with the Pulitzer board's award for the AP's Breaking News Photography, though liberal blogs have bene preoccupied with Cornyn. Some of those linking: Myopic Zeal; Michelle Malkin; Charles Johnson; Blogger Beer; Riding Sun; In The Bullpen.

  >> Conservative Ed Morrissey: "Pulitzer has just endorsed the encouragement of terrorists to kill people fighting for their freedom in order to get reeeeeeally kewl pictures to sell for lots of money." Power Line calls it "The Pulitzer Prize for felony murder" and provides links to Salon and Jim Romenesko, who provide the AP's side of the story, but which Power Line argues only incriminates the AP further.

• Smaller stories still getting attention include the announcement of details ex-VP Gore's new TV network, Current, and the resulting media coverage. Linking: Little Green Footballs; TalkLeft; The Corner; Michelle Malkin.

  >> Moderate BuzzMachine: Al Gore and Joel Hyatt announced their new network and new name at last. ... It's supposed to be TV by, about, and for the people and if it turns out to be that, it could be exciting and new. We'll see..."

BLOGS VS. THE MSM: Blame Canada

Slate's Mickey Kaus (scroll to "Blogging in Print") notes: "According to de facto MSM Damage Controller Howie Kurtz, WaPo's Mike Allen is apparently now admitting what has been obvious to everyone else who has followed the controversy over those alleged 'GOP Talking Points': the Post's stories were not entirely 'accurate and carefully worded' (Kurtz's words), nor is it true that Allen 'stuck to what we knew to be true and did not call them talking points or a Republican memo.' Instead, he let an early version of his story ship out containing the unsupported claim that the memo was 'distributed to Republican senators by party leaders.'" Kaus ads, Allen "temporarily let his scooplust get the better of him," which is "perfectly forgivable" escept that "the MSM is now claiming that it's somehow better at balancing the urge to scoop with the need to check than non-MSM writers."

Conservative Captain's Quarters has been banned in Canada for writing about embargoed testimony on a scandal in Canadian PM Paul Martin's government. Instapundit provides the best round-up of links, and comments: "I'm kind of surprised this routing-around-censorship story hasn't gotten more play in the United States. Is it just because any mention of Canada puts American editors to sleep?"

DELAY: Dissed By Cheney?

The Washington Post interview with Cheney has drawn some attention from both sides, in particular for his apparent disowning of DeLay's commments re: the Terri Schiavo case.

Liberal Left Coaster: "[Cheney] sawed off the branch behind Tom DeLay when he disagreed with the threats that DeLay has made ... and in so doing, he clearly put a finger in the eye of the red-meat right wing faction of the party."

A commenter at the right-leaning Balloon Juice writes: "Well played by Cheney. He gets to take the popular position with out actually taking a stance on what Delay has said. By claiming not to have seen Delay's comments, he can say that he is only talking about someone else's take on what Delay may or may not have said."

Also on this story: conservative Claremont's The Remedy; centrist The Moderate Voice; and liberal CAP's ThinkProgress.

DEMS: What's The Big Idea?

Yesterday's Ron Brownstein column in the LAT got several mentions around the blogosphere, at righty blogs Beltway Buzz and Pejmanesque.

Lefty Ezra Klein: "He does not -- thank God -- fall on the old and idiotic claim that Democrats lack ideas, instead claiming, correctly, that our ideas are remaining bottled. ... The reason single-party control can squeeze off anything positive or substantive from the minority party is that the media allows it to be so."

But right-leaning Orrin Judd sees it differently; he quotes one Brownstein line about how ex-Sen. Bill Bradley: "suggested that the party faced this problem because it had not developed enough compelling ideas." Judd adds: "Make that any ideas. Even Bill Clinton's legacy -- the positive portion anyway -- is a string of ideas foisted upon him by Republicans: the peace dividend, free trade, and welfare reform."

WHITE HOUSE '08: On A Clark

Ex-WH '04 hopeful Wesley Clark has a new blog up and running at his PAC website. On 4/4 he held a conf. call with lefty bloggers Jonathan Singer, Juan Cole and "Armando" from DailyKos. The right-leaning Little Green Footballs notes this in a post titled "Wesley Clark Hangin' with Moonbats."

SOCIAL SECURITY: Never-Ending Math Equation

Liberal Tapped's Matt Yglesias responds to an argument at NRO for using "infinite horizon" projection of Social Security: "Social Security is not just some kind of complicated math problem; it's an actual government program. It's important to recall that we don't actually have the ability to make binding decisions about what Social Security will look like in the distant future. The program has only just recently reached the end of its very first 75 years and it's already been drastically changed several times. ... These changes make a difference and they're not really predictable."

Conservative One-Handed Economist, on the left saying that Social Security "isn't really in crisis": "These are the same people who claimed that the current budget deficit would ruin the country. I think this is most interesting. ... The lefties have been saying not to worry about [Social Security] because the trust fund is U.S. Bonds. Now, this wouldn't be so interesting, if the current budget deficit weren't funded with exactly the same thing. ... The only difference that I can see is that the bonds in the SS trust fund were sold to one branch of government by another branch of government whereas the bonds making up the deficit were sold to private citizens."

Matt Margolis of Blogs for Bush participated in a conf. call with GOP Sens. Cornyn and Rick Santorum and Adam Putnam (FL) on Social Security, in which Santorum "explained that crowds are still big at [town hall meetings] and people are 'very tuned in to what is going on.'"

JUDGES: It Might Be Easier To Ask What's Not Unilateral

American Spectator's online Prowler column notes that Senate Min. Leader Harry Reid and House Min. Leader Nancy Pelosi "refused to adapt the party's weekly radio address to the breaking news that Pope John Paul II was on his death bed." A DNC staffer to the Spectator: "We had a plan in place for a national radio address that would have highlighted the Pope's stand on social justice and equality for all. They wouldn't do it. They said it would look like pandering, that it wasn't helpful to their agenda."

Instead they ran a pre-planned address by ex-Senate Maj. Leader George Mitchell on preserving the filibuster. WSJ's James Taranto quotes Mitchell speech: "All Americans should be concerned about the effort by Republican leaders in the Senate to unilaterally change the rules." Taranto: "The definition of unilateral keeps expanding; now it means at least 51 senators acting in concert. Since the Democrats have only 45 Senate seats, their filibusters aren't even unilateral, by Mitchell's definition. We guess you'd call them 'fractionalateral.'"

Pejman Yousefzadeh at RedState: "Evidently, according to ... Mitchell, Republicans are guilty of "unilateralism' if they consider a rules change in the United States Senate. Of course, I was brought up with the quaint notion that the majority -- and for that matter, the minority -- could propose rules changes and just have those proposals considered on their merits, but evidently, the accusation of 'unilateralism' trumps all."

THE POPE: While TV Is Stuck On It ...

Centrist Jeff Jarvis on "Pope OD": "We've long since passed the point of too much with the pope story. The world has not stopped. But media has."

Conservative John Hawkins includes the Pope's passing in a post about the things he's "not interested in writing about": "I'm not Catholic, he's not American, and while I do think some of the MSM coverage is kind of silly, especially polling Catholics about what sort of positions they want the new Pope to take, as if the Holy Father is a politician, it's not worth doing a whole post on the subject."

Righty Hugh Hewitt, on the Pope and Terri Schiavo, in a post "guaranteed to make zero sense to the non-believers": "The election of an American as pope is quite rightly ranked as the most improbable of outcomes of the conclave, but not so improbable is the selection of a new pope uniquely equipped to speak to this culture. God knows we need it. Terri Schiavo's death underscored that need in a way that cannot be understated. It is an old story in Christianity -- in fact the oldest -- that apparent disasters and outrageous injustices lead in fact to the brightest displays of grace."

IN THE STATES: Upcoming Election Edition

In a post titled "Why Joan Fitz-Gerald Can't Be Governor" at Colorado Pols writes, "[D]espite her legions of fans, [Dem] Senate President Joan Fitz-Gerald has an equally large number of enemies. ... Fitz-Gerald has a reputation for looking for primary candidates against legislators who go against her will, and the threats are silly and wasteful."

Pro-ex-Rep./TN SEN candidate Ed BryantBlogging for Bryant speculates: "With no end in sight to the media scrutiny over [Rep. Harold] Ford's uncle State Sen. John Ford the official announcement from Ford could be delayed much longer. ... TN Dems have been having fun talking about the "bloody" primary on the Republican side. If Ford backs out, all hell is going to break loose for TN Dems."

Linking to a BBC report, right-leaning WA-based SoundPolitics notes: "Of course the Democrats support vote-by-mail. It's easier to commit fraud that way, as turned out to be the case in Britain, where an election "won" through a conspiracy of vote-by-mail fraud was just set aside."

Pro-Rep. Mark Kennedy (R)/MN SEN candidate Kennedy vs. the Machine (formerly TBKADVK): "Minnesota -- remember what it was like to have two effective U.S. Senators? Me neither, but for the moment we can bask in the national spotlight shining on Senator Norm Coleman and his Oil-for-Food investigation. ... Just don't tell the Star Tribune that. The largest cog in the 'machine,' the Strib blasted Coleman's continued insistence on [Kofi] Annan's removal, calling his position 'extreme.'"

MISCELLANY: Gosch, That's Creepy

In her web column, The Nation's Katrina Vanden Heuvel points out: "We live in a brave new world of blogging, with the iPodization of news, and kids plugged in everywhere. ... Progressives use new technologies like BitTorrent--a filesharing program--that let them create websites like CommonBits.org that allow kids to watch clips from television news programs like the 'Daily Show with Jon Stewart' and 'Democracy Now.'"

The Personal Democracy Forum post about the potential regulation of blogs by the SF Board of Supvs. (cited in yesterday's Blogometer) is taking off in the blogosphere, starting with righty Bill Quick (coiner of the term "blogosphere." Quick adds links to other blogs following the story, plus contact info with SF officials. Calblog notes there is some "controversy as to whether or not this ordinance includes bloggers. My take, after reading the ordinance, is that it does indeed include bloggers who blog on behalf of candidates for office."

Noting that oil is up to $58 a barrel, lefty economist Brad DeLong writes: "It's been a while since I envied Alan Greenspan and his successors. But it's looking like the life of a central banker is going to be even more exciting than I had imagined."

Lefty Eschaton links to the Jeff Gannon/Johnny Gosch story in the Des Moines Register with the cryptic and creeped out comment: "What is this Crap? Jeebus." Several commenters are familiar with the story from conspiracy sites -- including one variation on the story involving the late Hunter S. Thompson -- and blow it off. One commenter writes: "This is a Rovian-style disinformation campaign designed to marginalize left-wing bloggers by portraying them as being nuts."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Lost In Transition

While "Ace" of Ace of Spades HQ claims to be retiring (though you can't be sure), Marc Cooper celebrates his 1-year blogiversary, and reflects (ellipses in original): "If there's one lesson I have learned over the last year ... or better said ... the one life lesson most reaffirmed by this experience is that any given individual's professed ideology usually tells us next to nothing about the him or her."

LEST WE FORGET: Final (Four) Thoughts

Libertarian Radley Balko shares some "insider knowledge" about how various public intellectuals make their NCAA Tournament bracket picks. For wonks only.

Posted by at 12:15 PM

April 04, 2005

4/4: RIP, JPII

No surprise here: The big topic of discussion in the blogosphere over the weekend was the passing of the Pope John Paul II. While much of the commentary are sincere reflections on the pope's life and lessons to be drawn from it, the event also became the impetus for occasional score-settling. Bloggers on the left argued that conservatives conveniently neglect to consider JPII's opposition to the Iraq war in their appraisals; both the left and right found reason to criticize weekend's the TV and newspaper coverage. Conservatives seemed to be covering this more than the left, leaving the left (in aggregate) a bit more room to comment on other stories.

Also afoot: lefty bloggers continue to discuss how to approach House Maj. Leader Tom DeLay; an interesting exchange between the conservative RedState and the Washington Post's Dan Froomkin; and an alarming rumor (emphasis: rumor) about the health and political future of Sen. Jim Jeffords (I-VT).

TRACKBACKS: Popepourri

Where the blog swarm is headed, who's taking part, and what they're saying:

• The number of websites -- left and right -- linking to and discussing JPII's death is overwhelming: New Donkey; Change for America; Eschaton; BuzzMachine; Oliver Willis; Talking Points Memo; Stephen Bainbridge; Right Wing News; OxBlog; Marshall Wittman; Dave Winer; Shot in the Dark; TVNewser. Catholic National Review's The Corner and evangelical radio talker Hugh Hewitt devoted most of their coverage to the Pope.

  >> A small sample of the comments: Kos: "Just remember, as Republicans try to embrace the Pope as part of their efforts to woe Catholics to the Dark Side, that the Pope was a fervent opponent of the Iraq invasion and was staunch death penalty foe." Lefty prof Juan Cole makes a similar argument, calling JPII "an inconvenient man, whose moral vision would be upsetting to the US Republican establishment if it were taken seriously." Liberal James Wolcott: "Fox News didn't even wait for the Pope to die to start politicizing his death."

  >> Galley Slaves takes issue with Slate's take on the Pope's passing: "In a word -- Counterintuitive!" Right-leaning QandO dubs Christopher Hitchens a "necro-heckler" for his Slate essay on JPII's "sins."
  Conservative Power Line and liberal Crooked Timber both note the New York Times' first posted article on the death of JPII contains the following paragraph: "need some quote from supporter". Power Line's John Hinderaker: "The Times' criticisms are ready to go, a few good words for the Pope are an afterthought.

• Plenty of buzz on the liberal blogs about a Houston Chronicle-reported Zogby poll showing DeLay losing support over the past year in his TX 22 CD. The linking: ThinkProgress; Talking Points Memo; Skippy the Bush Kangaroo; The Moderate Voice.

  >> Post title at People's Republic of Seabrook: "And It Couldn't Have Happened To A Nicer Demagogue." Charles Kuffner: "If this were an episode of 'Behind the Music,' it would be at the point of the show where the bandmembers talked about how their boozing and womanizing were starting to catch up to them."

  >> One of the few right-leaners to weigh in is at blogHOUSTON: "For quite some time -- but certainly in the last year -- the House Majority Leader has taken the best shot of pretty much any lefty or lefty sympathizer one wants to name ... If anything, the fact the Majority Leader's numbers haven't deteriorated any more than they have provides further anecdotal evidence of the decline of the Chronicle's influence and reach."

• Also popular in the liberal blogosphere is Michael Kinsley's column in the Washington Post (note: the Los Angeles Times version is not linked nearly as often: Post links; Times links) citing statistics that show greater prosperity under Dems. Links: The Mahablog; Wampum; Stanford Democrats; The Bite; Armchair Genius.

  >> Most takes are just this side of gloating; Amygdala writes: "If you're going to vote for spending money, you might as well at least let it be spent on the needs of the poor, the low-income, and the middle-class, and on public infrastructure, rather than on public debt, credit card companies, and the profit margins of the wealthiest."

DELAY: What Comes Next?

Lefty Eschaton: "I think he's about right - it is probably at its apex, especially if they (and, please please do) keep clinging to Tom DeLay instead of throwing him overboard before he brings them all down. The only we we'll get a massive conservative crackup is if they spend the next 18 months pushing [Terri] Schiavo-esque issues onto the media and the rest of us. But, I think their recent behavior in the Schiavo case, and the probability that DeLay will cling to power for at least a few more months will lead enough people to decide enough is enough."

Liberal humorist PatriotBoy photoshops DeLay's face onto a picture of Jesus Christ, titled "Republican Jesus."

ELECTIONS: The Hillary Paradox

TNR's &c., comments on Sen. Hillary Clinton (D) in light of a recent New York Times article: "Hillary is doing yeoman's work ... repositioning both herself and the party on issues like abortion and national security." But "the right can always launch a nasty smear campaign against her, which then gets the backs up of people on the left, who rush to her defense ... thereby undercutting her carefully crafted image as a moderate. I'm just not sure how she avoids this."

The DNC's Kicking Ass blog cites an American Prospect recap on RNC chair Ken Mehlman's visit to Howard Univ.: "No one was allowed in the room who didn't pre-submit a question, and there were hardly any students ... in the audience. Seems to me that Ken's a little scared of what some people might ask him, if given the chance. In fact, the one person who did make it through, tried to ask about RNC voter intimidation, and was tackled by security."

Personal Democracy Forum reports that the SF Board of Supvs. "will soon vote on a city ordinance that would require local bloggers to register with the city Ethics Commission and report all blog-related costs that exceed $1,000 in the aggregate. Blogs that mention candidates for local office that receive more than 500 hits will be forced to pay a registration fee and will be subject to website traffic audits, according to Chad Jacobs, a San Francisco City Attorney."

VT-based conservative site Dwinell Political Report writes: "Something is wrong with Jim Jeffords health. That is an opinion, not a fact. Listen in to his appearance on Vermont Public Radio's Switchboard program ... and make your own call. More: "Your editor has known Jeffords for five decades. He has campaigned with him. He has campaigned for him. He has had him over to his home. Never the most articulate, Jeffords has nonetheless changed. His speech patterns, music, rhythm, lexicology, and context are very different and do not contain his or anyone's normal or natural linguistic ability." One source says that he "was in a meeting with friends and associates of Jeffords and when Jim came into the room, he said, 'Gee I do not know any of you.'" More: "Normally, DPR might take a shot at Jeffords, ridicule him, or challenge him. Not this time, this is sad."

PULPIT POLITICS: Schiavo

Liberal criminal law blog TalkLeft uses the Schiavo case as a jumping off point for a discussion of the death penalty. Kausfiles reacts to a Zogby poll showing 79% of Americans wanted Schiavo to be fed: "OK, now I'm convinced Americans were in favor of removing Terri Schiavo's feeding tube."

Left-leaning Feministing responds to Gov. Rod Blagojevich's (D) move to require IL pharmacies to "accept and fill prescriptions for contraceptives without delay.": "Who says that I can't have an imaginary relationship with Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich? My stalking tendencies aside, this man f---ing rocks." Cross-posted to NARAL's Bush v. Choice.

Mark Noonan at Blogs for Bush, on a Gallup Poll showing an "all time high" 68% opposed to gay marriage: "As for myself, I'd prefer not to amend the Constitution regarding marriage; but I believe we'll eventually be forced into it by the anti-democratic efforts of the gay marriage proponents." An aptly-titled post by Asymmetrical Information's "Jane Galt": "A really, really, really long post about gay marriage that does not, in the end, support one side or the other."

BLOGS VS. THE MSM: Going After Froomkin, Matthews After Stolberg

RedState's "trevino" posts an e-mail exchange between himself and Washington Post's Dan Froomkin. Last week RedState's Patrick Ruffini called Froomkin's "White House Briefing" column "second-rate hackery." While "trevino" says he doesn't "adhere to the general conservative thesis of an ipso facto hostile media," he concurs with Ruffini that Froomkin is too consistently hostile to the WH and notes Froomkin family Dem donations. Over several e-mails, Froomkin denies "partisanship," and while he concedes the media often is sometimes "oppositionist," he sees his role as an "'accountabilitist' (if that were a word.)"

Of interest, because it pertains to the supposed scalp-hunting competitions between the left- and right-wing blogospheres: Soxblog posts a lengthy consideration of the firing of apparent Nazi prof Jacques Pluss from Farleigh-Dickinson Univ. in ND, and the reaction at lefty blogs including Daily Kos. The lefty blogs describe it as an issue of "academic freedom," but the conservative blogs -- and at least one commenter on DailyKos -- note that the prof was dismissed for chronic absence, and the school didn't know about the Nazi "associations" until after. Ace of Spades HQ: "My only gloss on this is that I really do understand how investigative reporters get swept up in a story, and want a story to be true. This was such a minor little thing -- at most, we'd be able to say 'Ha-ha, Kos and Atrios are idiots,' which isn't exactly bringing down Eason Jordan -- and yet we both wanted this to pan out."

MSNBC's Chris Matthews comes under fire from Michelle Malkin on for saying Terri Schiavo's father looked "giddy"; and from NR's Katherine Lopez at The Corner for arguing with a priest about clerical celibacy.

Power Line's Scott Johnson, on the New York Times' "predictably fawning profile" of Sen. Robert Byrd: "Byrd is indeed a valuable link not only to the Senate's past, but also to the Democratic Party's history as the party of slavery, segregation, and opposition to equal treatment of blacks. Times reporter Sheryl Stolberg obviously loves Byrd's cornpone constitutional shtick in favor of filibustering a Republican president's judicial appointees. It's a shame that Stolberg exerted no effort to put Byrd's shtick in the context it merits."

The Left Coaster posts part 8 of an ongoing series: "How the Liberal Media Myth is Created."

On a positive note: Conservative bloggers Malkin, Eric Pfeiffer, and Spoons Experience all have kind words for a eulogy by Newsweek's liberal Eleanor Clift for her husband, Cleveland Plain Dealer's Tom Brazaitis.

BLOGS VS. THE WORLD: Volcker Wagon

Roger L. Simon posts a fourth in his "Special Investigation" series on the UN's Oil-For-Food scandal and the Volcker Report, and writes: "People are watching these investigations from all over the world. Many of them have illuminating stories to tell. Some of them even know the truth."

DOMESTIC ISSUES: Minute By Minute

Dem blogger Oliver Willis, who has promoted Dem "branding" in the past, presents a new ad/poster concept saying "A Good Judge May Be The Only Thing Standing Between Your Privacy And These Guys" -- above pictures of conservative activist Randall Terry, DeLay, and Maj. Leader Bill Frist -- and closes: "Support Good Judges. Preserve The Filibuster."

The Nation's Marc Cooper traveling to AZ with conservative commentator Bay Buchanan and Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) to cover the "Minutemen" border watch. He reports there may be less than 100 participants: "And as this is mostly a media-inflated story and with the Pope sucking up all the media oxygen, so to speak, this whole Minuteman show might be headed for premature collapse."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: DeLay Measures

Note: This is a new feature for the Blogometer, where we'll attempt to locate a point that goes against the C.W. or we think could gain more traction.

Liberal Hullabaloo disagrees with the "hands-off DeLay" sentiment: "While I appreciate the 'don't fire 'til you see the whites of their eyes' strategy, after some thought I've decided that it's probably a good idea for the Democrats to put pressure on Delay right now. As a matter of fact, I think it will ensure that the wingnuts continue to support him and that he stays in the news and in his post well into the 2006 election cycle."

LEST WE FORGET: Won't Get Fooled Again?

Wizbang notes that online conservative rag WorldNetDaily got suckered into believing an April Fools post by celebrity gossip site Defamer that claimed CBS was "rushing" a Schiavo biopic (starring Keri Russell and Dean Cain) into production for the May sweeps.

Posted by at 12:17 PM

April 01, 2005

4/1: Artificial Intelligence

The contentious debate over the now-late Terri Schiavo has not receded entirely, but as happens so frequently, the blogs have been taken over by events: For the left, yesterday's report placing culpability for poor prewar WMD information on the intel departments; for the right, ex-Clinton NSA Sandy Berger's guilty plea in the document-stuffing story and temporary loss of clearance. There's some overlap, but not a great deal.

Returning to the fore on the port side of the blogosphere is the ongoing controversy over Maj. Leader Tom DeLay's leadership in the House, in part driven by his comments on the Schiavo case as well as yesterday' report by the Washington Post's Mike Allen on GOPers rallying to his defense.

What's notable about both Schiavo and DeLay cases is once again, infighting on the starboard side. There isn't much internal debate on the lefty blogs at the moment; most are standing aside and watching (and commenting) the right argue with itself. It's a mirror image of what happened in the blogosphere in the first couple months after the Dems' failure in the '04 election. Overall the volume is lower, but it's not without hysterics.

TRACKBACKS: Inside Intel

In this section we will provide a link to the original story, a brief description of what it is about, and then links to various sites offering comment. We're calling it "Trackbacks," after a common blog feature that shows which sites have linked to a particular post.

Where the blog swarm is headed, who's taking part, and what they're saying:

• Getting big play on the liberal blogs is the WH intel commis. report released 3/31 stating that pre-invasion estimates about Saddam Hussein's WMD/nuclear capabilities were "dead wrong." Linking blogs: iFlipFlop; Bark Bark Woof Woof; Cool Blue Blog; Blogs for Bush.

  >> Lefty ex-GOPer Running Scared: "For all of the [Pres.] Bush apologists who bristle with righteous indignation when progressives talk about the Iraq invasion as a 'war based on lies,' this is the information they need to be shown. For all of their denials, Bush ginned up that war knowing full well that this information, if not outright false, was subject to grave suspicion."

  >> Righty Ranting Profs uses the report to consider the NID: "Yesterday ... the word was that this report made clear that the NID had to be given sufficient clout to knock heads. But that all makes it sound as if the problem were a lack of consensus. In fact these descriptions make it look as if the problem were too much consensus, burying dissenting opinions. Like, say, from smaller independent intelligence agencies -- in this case, the one attached to the Department of Energy."

• Meanwhile, top news at a number of conservative blogs is the guilty plea by Sandy Berger will plead guilty re: taking classified documents from the Nat'l Archives. Linkin' logs: Ed Driscoll; Backcountry Conservative; Baldilocks; Little Green Footballs; TKS; Skippy the Bush Kangaroo.

  >> Right-leaning Wizbang: "It's worth noting that Berger will have his clearance back right in the midst of the primary season in 2008." And conservative "Captain" Ed Morrissey: "Far from the "accidental" removal he insisted occurred, Berger now admits to intentionally removing and destroying classified material, a condition of his plea bargain. ... He should face obstruction of justice and contempt of Congress just for this action alone, both felonies"

  >> One of the few liberals commenting is the Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum: "I really don't know what you can say about the Sandy Berger affair other than, What was he thinking?" But lefty Matt Yglesias is "seeing two different possible construals of what this means," but the "reporting seems ambiguous to me."

• Also looming large this a.m., Pope John Paul II's deteriorating health. The parallels to the Schiavo case are not lost on many. Linked: Michelle Malkin; Republic of T; Kinshasa on the Potomac; WizBang; Shamsellayla.

  >> Ex-Catholic Andrew Sullivan: "Could we have a vegetative Pope suspended indefinitely in this state? Yes, we could. Maybe we will."

  >> Washington Post's Achenblog: "Death is a highly personal event. There are few other moments in life when one would want greater privacy. ... The Pope is the most public of men, but even he has a right to privacy."

DELAY I: Don't 86 Until After '06?

Tapped's Sam Rosenfeld writes, "The much-cited Wall Street Journal editorial attacking DeLay had me panicked that Democrats and their allies might actually succeed in securing the Hammer's imminent fall, which would prove utterly disastrous for the prospects of nationalizing the 2006 mid-term elections with a reformist message that could topple many Republicans." He adds, Dems may achieve "remarkably fast, decisive success" on DeLay and Social Security, adding: "What did our president call it when Saddam fell too quickly? A catastrophic success. Think about it. Hands off DeLay!" At his personal weblog, Media Matters' Oliver Willis agrees.

Liberal Interesting Times, on the apparent GOP strategy: "Message: Tom DeLay didn't do anything wrong, the Democrats just can't come up with any good ideas on their own so they have fallen back to attacking DeLay's character. This is a strategy that could work, if it weren't for the fact that Tom DeLay is such a personally unappealing individual. The more people come to know him the less they like him."

Talking Points Memo: "When DeLay says 'bring it on' to his critics and marshals the full host of movement conservatism to defend him, I can't imagine that worries his critics a wink. ... Because that's just another way to drive home the reality that these groups are trying so hard to demonstrate: that Tom DeLay is the Republican majority -- extreme on a few key 'culture' issues and, beside that, on the block for the highest bidder."

DELAY II: Hero? Opportunist? Both?

Meanwhile, RedState's "trevino" quotes a Washington Times story where GOP activist Morton Blackwell says GOPers "are being told support for Mr. DeLay is mandatory if they want future support from conservatives."

The pseudonymous poster replies: "Well. It appears that the movement is now beholden to the furtherance of the haphazard career of Tom DeLay. ... Now, let us make no mistake: the Democrats and left-wing activists who are after DeLay are after him because they are leaderless and rudderless, and they have little left other than their desperation to do what they cannot in an actual election -- take down a Republican leader. One cannot blame Blackwell, et al., for reflexively not wishing to give an inch to this crowd. But this is precisely the wrong thing to do: Tom DeLay is not synonymous with Republicanism, and certainly not conservatism -- unless Republicans and conservatives make him be so. It is a favor he does not deserve: and he an albatross we do not need."

Opinion in the 80 or so comments below is decidedly mixed, with many defending DeLay on the substance of the charges, particularly re: TX redistricting. Site co-founder Mike Krempasky responds: "Tom Delay has supported hundreds of conservative movement organizations throughout his career - and I daresay no other member of Congressional leadership has done more on that front." Another commenter says: "I do have limited knowledge about some of this personally. Here's what I'll say about it: The Texas stuff is almost entirely crap and overwhelmingly false. The majority of the Washington stuff, however, is almost certainly true." And another who agrees with "trevino": "I think that Republicans investigating and possibly disciplining their own would play pretty well at the polls. It yanks the 'stop corruption!' rug out from under Democrat candidates."

FOREIGN POLICY: The War At Home

Kevin Drum, on the WH's intel commission finding that the CIA was an "uncritical cheerleader" of the belief that Saddam possessed WMD: "But if that's the case, why did the Pentagon feel the need to set up an Office of Special Plans in order to look at the raw data independently and construct the hawkish analysis they believed the CIA was too timid to produce? ... If the CIA was already championing the idea that Iraq had loads of WMD and close ties to al-Qaeda, Donald Rumsfeld wouldn't have needed Special Plans. The fact that he did must have meant that -- at least in the early days after 9/11 -- the CIA wasn't quite the uncritical cheerleader the commission says it was. At least, not uncritical enough for the rest of the Bush administration."

Lefty Eric Alterman offers a "few quotes for Altercation readers to keep in mind when examining the just-released intel report that sticks the blame for the lies the administration told about Iraq on the professional intelligence community, rather than with the Bush administration where it so clearly belongs."

DC atty Marty Lederman writes at Balkinization on the newly released Nat'l Defense Strategy (PDF), and quotes a "key assumption" from it: "Our strength as a nation state will continue to be challenged by those who employ a strategy of the weak using international fora, judicial processes, and terrorism." He comments: "Boy, if they're willing to say that in such a prominent public document, one shudders to imagine what they say in private about 'international fora' and 'judicial processes.' More chilling still is this editorial from the Washington Times. The problem, you see, is that the enemy not only knows what our laws are -- it also knows that we 'observe the laws of war.' Yes, if only we weren't so enamoured of that pesky ol' rule of law, winning wars would be oh so much easier. More: "This is a theme one increasingly hears," that Al Qaeda detainees "must be made to think that the law is uncertain ... so that the threat of extreme interrogation techniques is credible ... In other words, our law must remain opaque so that the threat of torture and inhumane treatment remains credible. (Never mind that such threats are themselves unlawful.)"

Pro-Israel blogger Charles Johnson, in a post titled "Ward Churchill is Not Alone," points out the faculty page for NC Wesleyan prof Jane Christensen, which is "proudly reeking of antisemitism and conspiracy mania." He includes actual questions from her class, "The American Presidency." Sample: "Discuss the sweeping attack on democratic rights under the Bush administration and what this means for the future of democratic government in America."; "Describe and discuss the role of the Bush advisors. Who are they? What is their agenda? And how is it being carried out?"

Lefty "Billmon" from Whiskey Bar notes a recent CQ article reporting that DHS "does not list right-wing domestic terrorists and terrorist groups on a document that appears to be an internal list of threats to the nation's security." Writes "Billmon": "Isn't it a little odd that the Homeland Security Department doesn't even bother to worry about the kind of people who blew up an entire federal building in downtown Oklahoma City? ... I guess we can file that last story under: 'Tending the Conservative Base.'"

CAMPAIGNS: Brave New Worlds

A lengthy explanation of a recent New Yorker essay by Ken Auletta about the future of political advertising and consulting by way of comparison with corporate marketing is the launching point for a wide-ranging debate at DailyKos

"Strategery": "Having run a state level campaign for NY Assembly, I can tell you it was a real bitch trying to find new and cost effective ways to reach voters. And to add to my headaches, it was a rural district where the Internet wasn't nearly as popular as most places. No emails, no money for TV. You can only run ads on so many country radio stations before you just want to vomit."

An excerpt from "Pounder": "Looking back at most TV ad campaigns BLAND doesnt even come close to describing them. What you REALLY need, and should be aiming for, is that all important 'earned media,' with a shock and awe ad that grabs the attention. SBVFT was that ad last year, by a mile. The failed 'wolves' ad was the GOP attempt. [John] Kerry had nothing. Moveon were a little better, but still pulled punches."

"BriVT" comments: "There's no bright line separating corporate campaigns, and there really shouldn't be one separating different facets of a political marketing campaign, either. You have to move across media and up and down the scale from mass advertising to many people (TV ads) to targeted advertising to specific demographics." He concludes: "[F]or God's sake, don't keep appointing TV media guys as the main communication person and then pay them by how much TV spots they manage to place. A flat fee for a media coordinator to facilitate message delivery across media is the only way to go."

There are many more comments, and many more still where it is cross-posted to The Next Hurrah.

Unrelated, Centrist Jeff Jarvis of BuzzMachine asks, "Is it possible to create an open-source polling service that gets a more accurate picture of public opinion and also allows the public to not only answer questions but also to ask them? ... I have my own pet polling wishes: I'd like to see more questions that really determine whether we are a nation at red-v-blue war or whether that is the fantasy of the fringes and media." Jarvis asks a number of interesting questions and attempts to answer them, proposing -- apologies, non-blog readers -- the "wikification, blogification, Craigsification, bittorrentification, linuxification of opinion."

SCHIAVO: Not Forgotten

The Nation's David Corn, at his personal blog: "Without knowing all the details, I can only say that it seems unfortunate that Michael Schiavo would not allow the Schindlers to remain at Terri's side. But I find it hard to take [conservative activist Randall] Terry's tears seriously. This is a fellow who preaches (his versions of) family values but who was booted out of his church for having an affair and leaving his wife." More: "Perhaps with Terri Schiavo finally dead, there can be a debate--free of political exploitation and self-serving exaggerations -- about these difficult end-of-life issues. But I wouldn't bet on it."

Weekly Standard's Jonathan Last harshly criticizes the New Yorker's lefty Hendrik Hertzberg, centrist Andrew Sullivan, and right-leaning Glenn Reynolds at the unofficial Galley Slaves blog, for assenting to the process leading to Schiavo's death. He concludes: "Like Sullivan and Hertzberg and the rest of the crew eager to get Terri Schiavo in the ground, it is Reynolds who assiduously avoided the facts at every turn--choosing instead to condemn the poor woman by association because of (some of) the people who have rallied to her cause. As Hugh Hewitt observes, this is demagoguery, pure and simple." In a post mentioning he's turned down radio appearances due to the high emotions of the debate, Reynolds writes at Instapundit: "I always hope that people can disagree without being disagreeable. ... Not everyone does. Those people are the fringey minority, for the most part, though I have to say that I was taken aback, and disappointed, by the Jonathan Last assault." Meanwhile, Sullivan finds a quote by conservative activist/bad pancake flipper Gary Bauer quote that reinforces his previous contention that the "zealots" would make a "martyr" of Schiavo and "figuratively prop her up as a symbol in the campaigns to come."

Centrist Mickey Kaus (note: scroll to "Credibility-Building") picks up on a quote by BC'04 strategist Matthew Dowd, who said: "The country's generally unhappy, and maybe they think the Terri Schiavo case is taking away from things that Congress or Washington ought to be working on." Writes Kaus: "If the country thinks the way Dowd seems to think it thinks, the country's wrong, of course." With the economy in "relatively good shape," Iraq going better-than-expected, and Bush's "unpopular private accounts plan isn't about to be enacted. Also to consider: When the Congress and Washington start visibly 'working on' something does it typically improve the situation?"

Tom Smith of The Right Coast composes "Michael Schiavo in Hell (a play in one paragraph)."

DOMESTIC ISSUES: Some Of This, Some Of That

The New Republic's &c. disagrees with the Washington Post's "sinister" take on the new policy requiring the Cabinet to hold WH office hours: "You've got to figure that the Bush White House wasn't letting its HUD secretary make policy on the fly, anyway. That he and other cabinet lowlights now have a standing invitation to the highest reaches of the White House can only be an improvement."

Centrist Joe Gandelman, on Ted Koppel's departure from ABC News: "Attention Dan Rather: There may be a new job opening for you!" More: "[T]he bottom line is that network news now loses someone who carved out a niche for himself as someone who was almost of the same stature as CBS's former news anchor Walter Cronkite. Koppel was almost universally praised ... And he was the kind of journalist journalism teachers everywhere could point to as a good role model for their young students.

At The Corner, NRO's Rachel Friedman comments on Columbia Univ.'s decision about whether student complaints against profs critical of Israel constituted threats, including useful links on the controversy.

Lefty Eschaton, on the latest jobs report: "I'd forgotten it was jobs day, so I didn't put my over/under bet in, but the unders have won again. Consensus: 225K new jobs. Actual: +110K, which as we know isn't enough to keep up with the increase in working age population..."

The New Republic's Jon Chait and National Review's Jonah Goldberg debate "liberalism and the economy" at the joint-venture website, OpinionDuel.com.

APRIL FOOL'S: Bloggers Just Wanna Have Fun

Liberal Left Coaster writes: "I've had it! Enough is enough! I am through being on the losing side every time. I'm going to change quite a few things about my life and then i